UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORTHERN NEW YORK

William M. Greene )
Karen M. Greene ) COMPLAINT
) PURSUANT TO
Plaintiffs, ) 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, CASE NO. 08-cv-0280
) 1001, 1031, 1341, (LEK/DRH)
) 1344(2), 1346,
) 1581, 1621, 1622,
Internal Revenue Service ) 2113 & 3231,
) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
Defendant ) & 1343,
) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
) & 1994

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUBMITTED AS A QUI TAM ACTION

AND REQUEST IS MADE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Dated: May 21, 2008

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action, allege(s)……………….…….……..…… 3-6

Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………..………….....…… 6-7
Venue ……………………………………………………………………………. 7–12
Identification of Parties …………………………………………………..…….. 12–14
Amount in Controversy ……………………………………………………….... 15–16
Demand for Jury Trial …………………………………………………………...…. 16
Public Interest and “Private Attorney Generals” ……………………………..… 16-18
Relief Being Sought …………………………………………………………..… 18-20
Statement of Complaint ………………………………………………………… 20-35
Exhaustion of Other Remedies ……………………………………………….… 36-49
Plaintiffs’ Repeatedly Requested that the IRS
Provide Any Reference of Law Requiring Them to File .…………………….… 50-51
Revenue Officer even sought to Intimidate Plaintiffs by
Providing Them with a Copy of Decision & Order Against
Plaintiffs’ Participating Organization That Is/Was Based Upon
IRS Falsification of Damages & Response to IRS ………………..………….… 51-63
The IRS Summonses to Plaintiffs Employer is in
Defiance of Recent U.S. Court of Appeals Case …………………………..….… 64-67
IRS Notice of Levys Were Issued to Plaintiffs Employer and
Plaintiffs’ Banks Without Court Order ……………………………………….… 68-75
A Retaliatory or Retribution Tax Imposed Against Plaintiffs
Exercising Their Right to Withhold Their Moneys Pending a
Redress of Grievances of Constitutional Torts is Unconstitutional
and Is, Itself, Illegal and Should Not be Enforced ………………………….….…75-84
Plaintiffs Will Also Draw Upon Other Evidence of Fraud
and Due Process Violations ……………………….…………………………...… 85-86
Further Expression of the Evidence Book and Proposed Ordinance
May Ultimately Lead to Government Contractors like the IRS
Being Responsive and Accountable to the Constitution ……………….……...… 87-91
Violations of the First Amendment are Occurring with Respect to the
Plaintiffs’ Right to Liberty & Freedom of Religion
(relating to freedom from peonage and slavery) ……………………………...… 91-113
Summary …………………………………………………………………….… 113-121
Cause of Actions ………………………………………………………………. 121-159
Plaintiffs Declaration …………………………………………………………... 160
Listing of Exhibits ……………………………………………………………... 161-168

2
PLAINTIFFS IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED ACTION, ALLEGE(S) AS FOLLOWS

1. Believing that the United States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation,

Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene hold that the United States

Declaration of Independence1 itself offers much to define the meaning and purpose of our

Self-Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty. As Christians, Plaintiffs

believe that irrespective of the historical use of the terms Inalienable and Unalienable2 in

relation to their God given Right of Liberty3 it must necessarily include freedom from all

1
The United States Declaration of Independence was an act adopted on July 4, 1776 by the Second
Continental Congress, formally entitled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of
America." See "The Declaration of Independence: A History" at http://www.archives.gov/national-
archives-experience/charters/declaration_history.html
2
"Inalienable" and "Unalienable" are terms borrowed from English common law. Some property rights
were alienable in that they could be sold or granted while others were inalienable meaning that they could
only be inherited according to fixed rule. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights were
popularly understood because of literary works like Francis Hutcheson’s A System of Moral Philosophy
(1755), which was based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience whereby one could not
in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external
contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." In the context of social
contract theory, "Inalienable Rights" were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or
property)", which were independent of positive law. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity." (See Pauline Maier, American Scripture:
Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, p. 134.) "Jefferson took his
division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and
important." (See Garry Wills, Inventing America. New York: Vintage Books, 1979, p. 213) Such that,
Thomas Jefferson originally wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . ." And although this was changed
to unalienable by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration, it has been argued, in many cases
other than this, that the axiom of inalienable rights was written into the Bill of Rights as the Ninth
Amendment rights “retained by the people.” For example, as a lawyer, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
argued in his briefing on behalf of John Van Zandt (frequently spelled Vanzandt in court documents) who
had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that our Rights are Inalienable: “The law of the
Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any
interior law which asserts that man is property.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 2
McLean 597 (Ohio Cir. Ct. 1843). When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chase argued: “No court is
bound to enforce unjust law; but to the contrary every court is bound, by prior and superior obligations, to
abstain from enforcing such laws.” Argument for the Defendant, Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. 215 (1847).
3
While most people are familiar with the phrase "give me liberty or give me death", very few are also
aware that Patrick Henry’s reference to “liberty” was as opposed to the forms of "slavery" being
experienced, which is self-evident from the statement/sentence Mr. Henry just before that: "Is life so dear,
or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"--Patrick Henry, in a speech March
23, 1775.

3
forms of slavery; including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery which was later

addressed by the Thirteenth Amendment.4 As such, the term Liberty as used throughout

this action is used in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery,

land slavery and tax slavery, and with respect to the subjects of taxation and the right to

trial by jury, hold that the United States Declaration of Independence offers the

“Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of

our Rights and Liberties as American’s, which include(ed) “For imposing Taxes on us

without our Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by

Jury.”5 Therefore, these clauses are actually very dispositive of the Declaration's

philosophy of unalienable natural law rights into positive law, presenting the basis of

basic statutes representing the underlying creative legal force for the proposed United

States Government, and/or the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter "IRS" and/or

hereinafter “Government Contractor” (See Exhibit 1 and Footnote #11), and therefore

Plaintiffs bring their complaint to this Honorable Court, as a Qui Tam Action, that is a

public interest suit, contending that they as well as every American have a First

Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, which does not only mean a

Right to Petition but implicitly a Right to a Redress of Grievances as well, and pending

the Redress of Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their

money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and

4
The clause "[h]e has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life
and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into
slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither." (Franklin 88)
was removed from the earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence submitted to the Continental
Congress, because the Southern delegation insisted that the charge be deleted so as to not confuse the
subject of chattel slavery with the other forms of slavery being protested.
5
See Declaration of Independence, as an act of the Second Continental Congress adopted on July 4, 1776,
at the National Archives; http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration.html

4
profits “derived from” the labor of others), the hard-earned fruits of their labor,6 as well

as to assert that as Christians, Plaintiffs in this case do differentiate between the

Hellenistic (Greco-Oriental) and Non-Hellenistic understandings of the nature of the soul

to the extent that Plaintiffs believe that the IRS does not have the right to their souls.7 In

this context, Plaintiffs assert their Right to Religious Freedom and believe it is the Right

of every Christian to be very Christlike in opposition to the ancient system of novation

called the biblical beast, and have an understanding of the role of the same in terms of the

census in connection with the birth of the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef’s (a.k.a. Jesus) as

a method on numbering (Wo)man for the purpose of tax slavery. Plaintiffs in this action,

support their beliefs with respect to the opposition to tax slavery by reference to the

history of the establishment of America as a nation as well as the Bible,8 and therefore,

based on Plaintiffs Rights as Americans and Christians anything but an all-out-

affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very

difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people are

6
See “Continental Congress To Inhabitants of Quebec, an Act passed unanimously by the Congress.”
Journals of the Continental Congress. Journals 1:105-113; “Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775.”
Papers 1:225.
7
Plaintiffs use of definition of (a) the soul being physically manifest in terms of one’s very life and
productivity and therefore defined in terms of the vital force of the body, (b) such that the definition of the
First Death as falling into physical or mortal danger as a result of the loss of God’s Grace as well as that of
overcoming the First Death by being restored to the land of the Living as a result of the infusion of God’s
Grace, (c) and the definition of the Second Death as the physical death, (d) and as opposed to, and therefore
not to be confused with the definition of the Shade as the sinful self represented after the physical death as
the persistent elements of the personality and mind which are not burned off through repetitive experiences
of union with God, (e) with reference to the Book of Wisdom being the first book of the bible in which the
definition of the soul was changed from that of the vital force of the body so as to define the soul in terms
of the shade which is a trait of Baalistic Theory as the Semitic/Hebrew culture as they came in contact with
the Greek culture, and (f) the definition of the god referenced in certain sections of the bible (e.g., Psalm
68:5) as being Baal, may all be found in many religious documents, including the ''Encyclopedic dictionary
of the bible'' (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second
Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive Secretary of the Catholic Biblical
Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
8
Particular attention is also given to reference from American history in support of Plaintiffs as Americans
and Christians (pgs. 91-113) as well from the Talmud in support of Plaintiffs beliefs that Jesus was
convicted as a criminal for encouraging the people to rebel and to not pay taxes when the basis of such
taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God (pgs., 109-111).

5
endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those

rights.

JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon District courts by 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1001, 1341,

1344(2), 1346, 1621, 1622, & 2113 in terms of the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well

as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 3231

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to the violations of First and Fifth Amendments of the

United States Constitution, in terms of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition for a

Redress of Grievances and Due Process Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with

respect to Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on the basis of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs wherein the loss of their Self-Evident God

given Right of Liberty9, when defined in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e.,

political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), is in violation of the Establishment and

Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident

Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a

price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of

divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the

ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast,10 which is definable in terms of

9
, Plaintiffs used of the term Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of freedom chattel
slavery, also includes freedom from peonage and freedom from all other forms of slavery as well.
10
…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are
contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666).
And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of
novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of
the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the
rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation
(the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact

6
slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and

42 U.S.C. § 1994.

3. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief by the Declaratory Judgment Act,

28 U.S.C. § 2202. This Court is authorized to grant preliminary and permanent relief

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

VENUE

4. Venue is founded with this Honorable Court on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) to restrain and

enjoin the IRS from the retaliatory acts of engaging in any and all IRS administrative

actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs

guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the

Government accountable to the Constitution, and specifically with regard to written

communications to the government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the

people the right to petition government officials for the redress of grievances (We the

People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007),

such that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First

Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v.

Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148,

1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United

States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), which the IRS Officials

a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system
whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all
adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and
monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be'
perpetrated ad infinitum."

7
have admitted to in public form (e.g., During 2003, as indicated in paragraph #28 of this

complaint, both I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, explained that “enforcement

actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with the states, show other ways that

government is answering the petition” and as outlined in paragraph #30 of this complaint,

IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after mailing lists.”), and as

evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of

the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (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)) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization,

WTP Organization, where the statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled

that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants or the Government could know

whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't investigate

whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of

individuals" a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim

occurred in this District Court to violate the Plaintiffs Rights of Privacy and Free

Association with the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, in terms of the “Indictment” or

bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and

Liberties as American’s, which include “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”

and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.”

5. Venue could have been equally considered in terms of the fact that Plaintiffs’

Employer and one of their Banks being located in other States, as well as the fact that

both Plaintiffs also were Plaintiffs in We the People v. United States (USDC Case No.

04-cv-01211) and the very nature of this Qui Tam Action lends itself to being a public

8
interest suit on behalf of all Americans, whether or not they were signatories, but

Plaintiffs’ legal address is also in Albany County, which is within the Venue of The

Northern District of New York with one of the Court locations being in Albany, and as

such, Venue is founded with this Honorable Court for this action as a direct result of the

IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable

Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer

and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and these administrative

actions and seizures and violations of our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property

and our Right to Trial by Jury have all been undertaken either without court orders or by

the IRS’ fabrication of damages within the courts which is patently illegal (26 CFR §

601.106(f)(1)).

6. Given 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, it is clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our

government authorized peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not

against the United States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and

liability is to be determined and defined in federal courts as a matter of general law,

unless it shall be shown and sworn to, by IRS officials, that officials of the United States

were complicit in more than the act(s) of fraud involving silence,11 who with knowledge

11
As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in

9
and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the

People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and

Christians, designated as "Citizens of the United States" in the Constitution for the United

States of America, long before the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ever

thought of, who, when it comes to actions by the said People against or involving the

alleged Unconstitutional Acts of a Federal United States of America, are in exercise of

the only remedy of We, The People, who have the Right to Petition for Redress of

Grievances against the Federal Government of the United States of America, by going

directly to the Executive and Legislative Branches of government for our Right to a

Redress of Grievances to be honored in remedy or relief, and given that Plaintiffs in this

case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were chatteled and released to a high

standard of living as a result of the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter afforded other

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore are not “persons under the law”

and are not subject to the kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth

Amendment and any application of the Fourteenth Amendment which might serve to

diminish their enumerated and unremunerated Rights, particularly the accursed

foundation of Tax-Slavery established under Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment,

which would therefore be an unconstitutional application of the Amendments to the

Constitution given their standing as Americans and Christians, and as Americans and

Christians who are not “subject” to the redefinitions of citizenship associated with the

the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in
Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress.
Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession
for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North,
1775. Papers 1:225.).

10
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, for the Plaintiffs in the action are “not subject”

to any Acts of Congress, other than the Eighteen-powers specifically enumerated in the

Constitution for the United States of America, without Congress itself repealing the

Constitution and every other Amendment to the Constitution, such that even Congress

can not pass laws such as the Anti-Injunction Act nor honor any provision of the Internal

Revenue Code (hereinafter “IRC”) that diminish or abrogate the People’s Right to

Liberty, let alone the enumerated First Amendment Right of the Plaintiffs to seek and

secure redress of grievances involving constitutional torts, and although the

Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations into the Code (26

C.F.R. § 301.7805-1) with approval of the Secretary, without cites of authority for the

offensive CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, nor

even statute cite, the fact is, Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that it is written for

no other purpose that to allow the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful

abridgement of certain Inalienable Rights, simply because the final wording of 26 CFR §

601.106(f)(1) allows an Appeals representative at a later time to hew to the law and the

recognized standards of legal construction is no excuse for the routine practice of

Constitutional Torts such as these, and the very idea that 26 U.S.C. 6673(a)(1) would be

used as an authority for an IRS Administrative Office (Tax Court) to impose a Civil

penalty of up to $25,000 if an individual was honestly trying to get answers to his/her

questions, which the IRS has consistently refused to provide, as well as the very idea that

26 U.S.C. 6673(a)(2)(a) would be used as an authority to impose additional penalties

upon any attorney or other person to personally pay excess costs, expenses, and

attorneys’ fees incurred because of such conduct when that attorney or other person was

11
honestly standing upon the individual’s Constitutional Rights is outrageous and the list of

additional reasonable Constitutional Torts therefore seems almost endless, for based upon

our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include

freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery,

political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural Rights of Association, Privacy,

Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, and particularly our Right to Trial by Jury must

be recognized before we might be deprived of any of these other Rights, and finally, in

the context of 28 U.S. § 455, one has to wonder if anyone can truly receive a fair trial in

light of such bias, and in the context of Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 U.S. § 238 (1980),

the Supreme Court has also recognized the same, therefore in presenting this action,

Plaintiffs can only pray that the presence of such underlying factors does not necessarily

establish similar biases12 with respect to their having founded Venue with this Honorable

Court.

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

7. Plaintiff William M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of

America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of

PO Box 279, Voorheesville, NY 12186. He is a 57 year-old father and grandfather. He

12
e.g., “This complaint is developed in the spirit of the teachings one of the foremost founders of this
country; i.e., "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action
according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn
around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but
the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter
to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819 in Appleby and Ball (1999) p 224 (Emphasis Added). As a Qui Tam
Action, the information provided in the present text will allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department
to review the case and decided whether or not the U.S. Attorneys will investigate charges against the
Government Contractor (IRS), as well as to outline the fraud that has been perpetrated even upon this very
Court. After review by the U.S. Attorney and Justice Department, permission will be sought from the
Court to downsize the text presented within this suit such that most if not all the referencing footnotes will
be removed.

12
has never been convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book

violation, as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to

correct through future Petitions of their Right to a Redress of Grievances.

8. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is a citizen of the United States of America and one of

America’s many homeless truck drivers on wheels, maintaining a legal postal address of

PO Box 279, Voorheesville, NY 12186. She is a 46 year-old mother and grandmother.

She has never convicted of anything greater than a traffic infraction or log book violation,

as interferences with their Right of Liberty which Plaintiffs would also seek to correct

through future Petitions of their Right to a Redress of Grievances.

9. Defendant, IRS, is a “Government Contractor” for the United States of America with

principle offices located at 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20224.

Linda E. Stiff is the Acting Commissioner of the IRS.13

13
Although, the United States of America has long been recognized to be a corporation subject to suit (See
Dickson v. U.S., 125 Mass. 311, 1878 WL 10951, 28 Am.Rep. 230 (Mass., 1878)) and 28 U.S.C. § 451
does define “agency” as including “any department, independent establishment, commission,
administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United
States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more
limited sense”, the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate per the pleadings in Diversified Metal
Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-
E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER AND CLAIM) wherein both Betty Richardson, a United States
Attorney, and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax
Division,“Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ...” (See
Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4), and contrary to the other assertions made in that same case,
Plaintiffs in this action assert that the IRS can not also be defined as an "instrumentality of the United
States" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 3002(C) because other court documents on the subject shows that
“There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432,
the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441
U.S. 281, 292 (1979)), and research on Title 31 of the US Code, as currently published by the US
Government, reflecting the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006, for the codification and
"classification" to corresponding US Code sections contained in SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION,
from Jan. 2, 2006 to the most recent entry on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, shows that although 31 U.S.C. §
301(f)(2) is a reference authorizing the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS, the IRS itself is not even listed as an

13
organization within meaning of TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER which
explicitly lists the organizational structure of the United States Department of the Treasury. Moreover,
although 5 U.S.C. § 105 defines an "Executive agency" as an "Executive department", "Government
corporation" or an "independent establishment", the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title
5, Government Organization and Employees, and Section 1 of Title 5, referred to in text, is section 1 of
former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, the provisions of which
are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and the definitions of
agency and department conform with such definitions in section 6 of revised title 18, U.S.C. (H.R. 3190,
80th Cong.), Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953 is the only authoritative document under which the pure
Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed
to the Internal Revenue Service, thereby creating the illusion of the IRS being an actual agency of the
Department of the Treasury with all regulations, mimeographs, forms, and other Internal Revenue and
Treasury documents amended to conform to Treasury Order 150-06. In fact, according to the Code of
Federal Regulations Title 26 is the authority for the Internal Revenue and Chapter I is entitled the Internal
Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, and, of course, it is easy to surmise why this statute was
adopted because it clearly appears to lack any substance given that the Internal Revenue is actually listed as
a Trust at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2), with Districts and Boundaries established by the President 26 U.S.C. §
7621. Additionally, according to 26 U.S.C. § 7802, the Department of the Treasury the Internal Revenue
Service is supervised by a Trustee or corporate body of independent of the Managers called an “Oversight
Board” composed of nine members, with one of those nine members being the Secretary of the Treasury or,
if the Secretary so designates, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(B)), with
the Authority of the “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” being set forth at 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and
according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the terms “Secretary” or “Secretary of the Treasury” means the
Attorney General. Additional Oversight Board members include the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(C)), appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(A)), and who can be removed from office at the discretion of the
President (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a)(1)(C)), and while one of the other nine members Oversight Board must
be a full-time Federal employee or a representative of employees and who again is appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(D)), the six other
members need not even be Federal officers or employees but are simply defined as individuals appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. § 7802(b)(1)(A)), and
according to 26 U.S.C. § 7801(a)(2)(A) the term “internal revenue officer” means any officer of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General, and finally, in
accordance with the US Attorney’s statement that the IRS is NOT an agency of the US government,
operationally, rather than applying Levys at maximum allowable “15 percent levy”, the Government
Contractor (IRS), more often than not, operating as a judgment creditor, is reported to Levy in accordance
with 26 U.S.C. § 6331(h)(3) which appears to the Plaintiffs in this case to be the only possible justification
under the Code for substituting “100 percent levy” which is ONLY applicable in terms of any specified
payment due to a vendor of goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government, and, as such,
Plaintiffs maintain that the term “Government Contractor” is appropriate as used throughout this action,
and more importantly, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional right to
Contract, in which they would be entitled to the fruits of their labor as their Property, only as long as they
pay a percentage of their labor property at 15% or at 100% is slavery or peonage and therefore criminal, for
state ownership they have only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is definable in terms of
slavery and/or peonage and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor property, which if
constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%. But, if it should be argued and this Honorable
Court should find that Congress has in fact passed a law for the codification and "classification" to
corresponding US Code sections wherein-by the IRS could lawfully be defined as an agency or
instrumentality of the United States Government, and/or that Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953, being
the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and
thereinafter the named Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the named Internal Revenue Service, is
sufficient to warrant a definition of the IRS as a legitimate agency or instrumentality of the United States
Government, Plaintiffs respectfully demand that as a Qui Tam Action, the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice
Department and/or the Private Attorney General(s) submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or
also seek damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be sued in

14
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

10. The price of a (wo)man’s Soul (as the vital force of the body) exceeds any amount

conceivable, but the amount in controversy in this case exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, and by filing this action as a Qui Tam Action, that is a public interest suit,

Plaintiffs believe that it is the rightful duty of a Grand Jury to investigate and the actual

sum in controversy, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees that may be incurred

may be established based upon Grand Jury findings. Damages are being sought from the

IRS and not from the individual IRS agents or their supervisors by Plaintiffs’ filing this

suit because Plaintiffs’ religious belief systems result in a definition of the underlying

problem as that of a Root Sin in which ultimately even the victimizers are themselves

unknowing victims wherein-by Plaintiffs are ever mindful views and teaching of the good

Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) which appears inconsistently (some but not all original

texts) in relation to such matters (e.g., Luke 23:34), but as a Qui Tam Action it is

expected that other Americans will in fact sign on to the suit, in which case the initial

Plaintiffs bringing this Qui Tam Action are not speaking for said others, such that, the

U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department and/or those who may be expected to sign

onto this Action, who by common consent, may direct the U.S. Attorneys or Private

Attorney General(s) to submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or also seek

damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be

their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be appropriate, for when the
level of retaliation against the Plaintiffs, as set forth throughout this complaint, is placed in the context of 5
U.S.C. § 3331 it is much more that truly reprehensible, because “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).

15
sued in their individual and personal capacity, acting under “color of law”, as may be

appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11. Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, hold that in accordance with the

United States Declaration of Independence and particularly the “Indictment” or bill of

particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and

Liberties as American’s which include(ed) “For imposing Taxes on us without our

Consent” and “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”, demand

the right to a jury trial as set forth in the United States Declaration of Independence and

guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment United States Constitution, as well as the United

States Supreme Court.

PUBLIC INTEREST and “PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS”

12. According to the law, this Qui Tam Action is to be filed under seal for 60 days to

allow the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department that will be reviewing the case to

investigate charges against the Government Contractor (IRS) and decide whether or not

to intervene in the case.14 In fact, with Presidential candidates now making the

14
Plaintiffs are concerned about possible extensions. The reason Plaintiffs have a concern is that along
with IRS Form 668-A(ICS), the IRS agent notified Plaintiffs’ employer in January that once they are in
receipt of the levy they can not issue an advance, and the only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees.
Yet the actual contract calls for Plaintiffs’ employer to advance the expense moneys to pay for fuel and
tolls (which at current prices runs about 45-50 cents on every dollar they make) to complete the contracted
job. Without these contracted funds from their employer, Plaintiffs are unable to work. In addition, on
February 1, 2008 Plaintiffs employer notified them that he just received another form, Form 668-W(ICS),
which puts us out of work permanently unless and until this Honorable Court provides Injunctive Relief.
Because Plaintiffs live in the truck they work out of (maintaining their PO Box as their legal address),
without the ability to make truck payments Plaintiffs and their thirteen year old son will be homeless very
soon.

16
elimination of the IRS a formal aspect of their campaign, public awareness of the

illegality and misapplication of income tax statutes has been steadily growing. Add to

that, in the related § 6700 Suit (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)) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization,

that at least one U.S. Attorney was compelled by her sense of honesty and integrity to

admit to the Second Circuit that they have been caught on the wrong side,15 and for these

reasons and much more Plaintiffs believe it to be an opportune time for the U.S. Attorney

and Justice Department to intervene on behalf of We, The People.

13. It would also be preferable to Plaintiffs if the U.S. Attorney and the Justice

Department intervened in this Qui Tam Action, but in the event they should not, Plaintiffs

point to the fact that the Supreme Court held that, “…This and other federal courts have

repeatedly held that individual litigants, acting as private attorneys-general, may have

standing as "representatives of the public interest." Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n,

316 U.S. 4, 14. See also Commission v. Sanders Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477;

Associated Industries v. Ickes, 134 F.2d 694; Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630; Scenic

Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608; Office of Communication of United

Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994. Compare Oklahoma v.

Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 137 -139. And see, on actions qui tam, Marvin v.

Trout, 199 U.S. 212, 225 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 546 . The

15
e.g., Where evidence of the falsification of damages was provided to the Second Circuit through the
statement of the Government assigned Counsel reveled that "it's not clear to me how either the Defendants
or the Government could know whether those individuals used the materials … the IRS obviously can't
investigate whether those individuals have been failing to pay tax returns until it has the list of
individuals…"

17
various lines of authority are by no means free of difficulty, and certain of the cases may

be explicable as involving a personal, if remote, economic interest…” See Flast v. Cohen,

392 U.S. 83, 120 (1968).

14. This suit is also written with the expectation that other People will sign on to it as

additional Plaintiffs, and by common consent, the Plaintiffs may be expected to choose a

“private attorney general” from among themselves or act individually as “private attorney

generals” such that, We, The People, have standing in this action if the DOJ attorneys do

not have the inclination or time to prosecute the Named Accused “Government

Contractor (the IRS)”, and, as such, Plaintiffs hereby claim the status of “representatives

of the public interest” in addition to their status as Plaintiffs.

RELIEF BEING SOUGHT

15. Due to the on-going nature and extent of the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs caused by

the IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain

Inalienable Rights, including the ongoing siege, harassment, and intimidating activities,

involved with recent Summons served on Plaintiffs Employer, Notice of Levies

unlawfully served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, and Notice of Levies served on

Plaintiffs Employer and other interferences with Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right of

Contract (which has effectively put them out of work) and Freedoms of Association and

Religion, Injunctive Relief to protect against the irreparable harm is being respectfully

requested, granting Plaintiffs the temporary relief requested in their Complaint, or

alternatively move this Honorable Court for an entry of an Order:

18
a) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining all ultra vires (without bona fide authority)

administrative actions, and prohibiting the IRS from acting under color of the IRC in

attempting to force Plaintiffs as ordinary Americans to file and pay an un-apportioned,

direct tax on their salaries, wages and compensation; and

b) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the

collection of any tax from any Plaintiff that is based on the Plaintiff’s labor, until the

underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious

Belief Systems now before this Court are finally determined; and

c) directing the IRS to immediately release and suspend all Notice of Liens, Notice of

Levys and audits put into effect against Plaintiffs, until the government either answers the

Petitions for a Redress of Grievance to hold the Government accountable to the

Constitution or until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs

Christian Religious Belief Systems by the Governments Contractor (the IRS) now before

this Court are finally determined; and

d) directing the IRS to send a letter to State and County officials for prudent policies of

commercial process to be implemented including (1) the Immediate Removal of All

Unsupported Notices of Lien Filings of Records for the protection of business and

property holders of this State which have been filed under Fraud, (2) directing all State

and County officials to protect themselves from possible litigation resulting from the IRS

Fraud, by immediate reorganizations of the Recorder of Conveyance to include a separate

19
alphabetical “Notice of Federal Tax Lien Index” without recordation and therefore

without Securities value and worth, and (3) Only when IRS agents/officers submit the

supporting documents including affidavits, 23C Assessments, judicial orders, and process

documents with delegated authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, may said Federal

Tax Lien be recorded, thus becoming transformed and worthy to be placed correctly in a

“Federal Tax Lien Index” as a Bonafide Tax Lien; and

e) temporarily and preliminarily enjoining and prohibiting the IRS and any other real

agency of the United States that arguably may act in this matter under color of the IRC,

from advancing any and all administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against

Plaintiffs, including the sharing of information and/or cooperation with state taxing

authorities, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations of Plaintiffs

Constitutional rights, including Plaintiffs’ Christian Religious Belief Systems, now

before this Court are finally determined; and

f) granting any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINT

16. Plaintiffs, William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, who are Pro Se, contended that

in accordance with the United States Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and

Bill of Rights in the context of the first Thirteen Amendments the Constitution, Slavery

and Peonage are unconstitutional, and as a God given Inalienable Right, the subjects of

Liberty and Freedom, as rights of citizenship, are also inclusive within their right to

20
Religious Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23; I was bought at a price; to not

become a slave of men), such that, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of

our servant government has any right to diminish or abrogate or otherwise divorce the

People from their Rights, and when We, The People, perceive this most basic of Rights as

being violated as a matter of the government or its contractor’s unconstitutional actions,

the People have a First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and

that means not just a Right to Petition, but if the Petition Clause itself is to not be

rendered in whole or in part without meaning, it means that the Plaintiffs have a First

Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances as well, and pending the Redress of

Grievances, Plaintiffs assert legal rights to their property - namely, their money, the hard-

earned fruits of their labor, state as follows:

17. Plaintiffs have been facilitating citizen vigilance and activism in the form of

petitioning state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their

First Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in

employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms

of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of We The People Foundation

For Constitutional Education (herein after referred to as the “WTP Foundation”) and We

The People Congress (herein after referred to as the “WTP Congress”) and collectively

known as We The People Organization (herein after referred to as “WTP Organization”),

have been a part of a number of demonstrations in Washington DC regarding their First

Amendment Right to Petition government for a Redress of Grievances regarding

Constitutional torts.

21
18. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been exercising their First

Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and Government Contractors

accountable to the Constitution regarding (1) the IRS’s apparent violations involving the

tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American), and

the Government's apparent violations of (2) the War Powers Clauses (by the Iraq

Resolution), (3) the privacy and due process clauses (by the U.S.A. Patriot Act), (4) the

money and debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution, (5)

the President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws (Illegal Immigration),

(6) regarding the North American Union, (7) Gun Control, (8) U.S Aid to Israel, (9) are

currently proactive in the national distribution a Freedom Flyer (Exhibit 2) to encourage

other truck drivers to contact WTP Organization for the purposes of developing a new

Petition involving constitutional torts regularly experienced in the trucking industry, and

(10) apart from petitions put forth by WTP Organization, are also signed on to another

Petition for Redress of Grievances authored by the five widows of 9-11 victims, a group

of 9-11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

19. Both Plaintiffs were also signed onto WTP Foundation’s original historic Right-to-

Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury Department, the

Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United

States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)16 and because of many concerns over possible

16
WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S.
Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).

22
retaliation the initial complaint did not list our names individually, however Plaintiff

William M. Greene is listed on WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For

Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive Relief17 and both Plaintiffs are listed

on the Second Amended Complaint,18 and following the District Court having dismissed

plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, No. 04-cv-1211, slip op. at 6

(D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2005)) and thereby essentially voiding the First Amendment Petition

clause by ruling that the First Amendment does not provide plaintiffs with the right to

receive a government response to or official consideration of their petitions (Id. at 2-3)

and also concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act bars plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief

with respect to the collection of taxes (Id. at 5 (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7421)), both Plaintiffs

remained as Appellants in the Appeal and based upon the decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C.

Cir. 2007), with rehearing en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007), Writs of Certiorari were filed

in a timely manner (Dockets Number 07-680 & 07-681) with Petitions for Writ of

Certiorari denied as well (January 7, 2008), WTP Foundation submitted the final appeal,

the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari which

SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, voted to not hear in spite of the

Constitutional duty to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment

and provide relief for those of us who contend that recent IRS administrative actions

taken against them under the Color of Law are retaliatory with respect to our guaranteed

17
WTP Foundation et al.’s First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and
Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintAmended-9-15-04.PDF);
18
WTP Foundation et al.’s Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and
Injunctive Relief (USDC Case No. 04CV01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/SecondAmendedComplaintWTPvUS11-12-
04.PDF);

23
First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government

accountable to the Constitution.

20. On April 13, 2000, for example, the major points expressed in WTP Organization’s

Petition for a Redress of Grievances concerning the alleged illegal operations of the

federal income tax system and the IRS was hand delivered to leaders of the three

branches of the federal government by a group of citizen-delegates representing all 50

states, and on April 2, 2001, Robert Schulz, Chairman and founder of WTP Organization,

requested that he be allowed to testify at the April 5, 2001, Senate Finance Committee

hearing, under the chairmanship of Senator Charles Grassley, which was a hearing

specifically to warn taxpayers about illegal tax schemes, scams, and cons. After which,

Robert Schulz was informed that he would not be allowed to testify but was informed

that if WTP Organization submitted a written statement the Committee would decide

whether it would be added to the official record of the hearing. Robert Schulz followed-

up on this advice by mailing the statement to the Senate Finance Committee,19 which

directly incorporated a shortened version (with reference to full-length version) of

Larking Rose’s March 6, 2001 letter to Attorney General John Ashcroff. Before the

April 5, 2001 hearing began, WTP Organization also submitted the required number of

copies for the record of the hearing, which had twenty (20) exhibits attached to it, and

although Robert Schulz’s statement was attached to the official record of the Senate

19
See Statement Submitted to Senate Finance Committee, "Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and
Fraud." April 5, 2001, Submitted by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Foundation For
Constitutional Education, Inc. (http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/PressKit-04-05-01.pdf)

24
Finance Committee hearing20 as pp. 117-124, and because, none of the exhibits were

included in the record, Plaintiffs can not help but believe that the suppression of evidence

might constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (i.e., Obstruction of proceedings

before departments, agencies, and committees), because among those attachment was

included a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated June 26, 1989 and a copy

of WTP Organization’s letter to Commissioner Rossotti, which included a copy of Sen.

Inouye’s letter (Exhibit 3 ) which reads in part:

"…I am writing in further response to your inquiry regarding the precise

provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRS [sic]) that render an individual
liable for income taxes…Based on the research performed by the
Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically
and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes."

21. Joseph Banister, Bill Benson, Larken Rose and Robert Schulz also attended that

April 5, 2001 Senate Finance Committee hearing, but were not allowed to testify because

the message offered by WTP Organization would "detract from the message the

Committee was trying to convey." In response, on April 9, 2001, WTP Organization

invited any representative of the IRS and/or IRS Commissioner Rossotti, himself, to

answer the questions and allegations raised by tax researchers or even respond to the

simple statement of “show me the law!”

20
See Taxpayer beware: schemes, scams, and cons: hearing before the Committee on Finance, United
States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session on IRS oversight, April 5, 2001. Y 4.F
49:S.HRG. 107-77, Item Number: 1038-A.
(http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov&v%3afile=viv_901%4029%3at3h2GQ&v%3astate=ro
ot%7croot&opener=full-
window&url=http%3a%2f%2ffinance.senate.gov%2f73551.pdf&rid=Ndoc4&v%3aframe=redirect&rsourc
e=firstgov-msn&v%3astate=%28root%29%7croot&rrank=4&)

25
22. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have been a part of the effort to present

our questions to elected representatives, and even though we are only two of the people

who have signed onto the Petitions for Redress of Grievances, we not only believe it is

our government’s constitutional duty to respond but further believe that a failure to

respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional torts constitutes,

among other things, fraud, extortion, and civil rights violations, on the part of

government and/or the government’s contractors (the IRS).

23. Some of the questions presented include questions and reasons for questions

regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment and are included in said “Statement of

[538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax”21 under the “Sixth Belief”,

paragraphs 1-119. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have said questions

been answered except by Bill Benson in his two volume research report, “The Law That

Never Was” and at the two-day Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing22 in Washington DC

on February 27-28, 2002 by a panel of experts including constitutional attorney Lowell

Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister and Bill Benson, and it is Plaintiffs’

understanding that American jurisprudence have never successfully refuted said facts.

24. Other questions and reasons for questions regard “Section 861” which are found in

said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under

the “Ninth Belief”, paragraphs 1-16. Nowhere in American history or jurisprudence have

21
See Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax,
(www.givemeliberty.org/NoRedress/STOP/StmtOfBeliefs3-09-03.PDF)
22
See Truth-In Taxation-Hearing, Initial Questions, January 22, 2002
(http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News/Historical/WTPQuestions-020122.pdf)

26
said questions been answered except by Larken Rose in his research report, “Taxable

Income”, and it is Plaintiffs’ understanding that nowhere in American jurisprudence have

said facts been formally and specifically refuted.

25. Moreover, representatives of the United States as well as the Government’s

Contractor (the IRS) have refused to answer questions and reasons for questions

regarding “Liability” which are found in said “Statement of [538] Facts and Beliefs

Regarding the Individual Income Tax” under the “Second Belief”, paragraphs 1-82, and

under the “Third Belief,” paragraphs 1-45, and under the “Fourth Belief,” paragraphs 1-

23, and under the “Seventh Belief,” paragraphs 1-42, and under the “Eighth Belief,”

paragraphs 1-23, and under the “Tenth Belief,” paragraphs 1-24, and Nowhere in

American history or jurisprudence have said questions been answered, except by various

tax professionals at the Citizens’ Truth in Taxation Hearing in Washington DC on

February 27-28, 2002.

26. As stated on pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27, WTP Foundation’s

historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit23 again, in October, 2003, Department of Treasury

Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Ms. Pam Olson, was respectfully Petitioned by over

five hundred people to answer the six questions regarding Section 861.

23
See pages #8 and 9 in connection with paragraph 27 regarding six questions about Section 861, in WTP
Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury
Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice; We the People v. United
States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211)
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/courtfilings/ComplaintWTPvUS7-12-04.PDF).

27
27. Moreover, these six questions were also presented as an attachment “2D” of Plaintiff

William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), but the point

Plaintiffs would seek to make here is that Neither Ms. Olson, nor any other individual

from the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch nor the IRS responded to these simple

questions, and whatever effect the silence of the Executive and Legislative Branches of

government may have in terms of legal definitions of fraud, it is important to make the

distinction between silence as fraud and the criminal acts of those who with knowledge

and forethought “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the

People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and

Christians, and because the government's dual actions of evading the public discussion of

the issues while not interfering with the IRS’ actions to strengthen its steel-fisted, heavy-

handed enforcement campaign of fear and terror, thereby eroding the Constitution by

sanctioning the IRS’ retaliation, under color of law, against the People who have, in good

faith, claimed and exercised unalienable Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which

by-and-of-itself only serves to strengthen the resolve and determination of a People who

see themselves as free and sovereign and who see all of government limited by a written

constitution, can no longer be tolerated and therefore warrants the U.S. Attorney and the

Justice Department, or Private Attorney General, to intervene against the Named Accused

“Government Contractor (the IRS).

28. Plaintiffs, through the more formal efforts of the participating organization, of which

the Plaintiffs are a part, have gone to great lengths to express the fact that what is truly

reprehensible is not the subject matter presented in the Petitions for Redress of

28
Grievances, and not even the government’s unwillingness to answer legitimate questions

and be held accountable to the Constitution prior to the matter being resolved by some

form of court action, but rather the lengths that the IRS, as the Government’s contractor,

was and is apparently willing to go to silence anyone who questioned its power in the

context of the petitions, for, as shown by Paragraph #1650 of the WTP Foundation et al.’s

Second Amended Complaint For Declaratory Relief, Equitable Relief, and Injunctive

Relief (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) on September 16, 2003, at a press conference held

at the US Treasury Building, organized by the US Treasury Department and IRS, Mr.

Terry Lemons, a senior spokesman for the IRS stated, in response to a question put to

him by David Cay Johnston of The New York Times as to why the Government had not

responded to the petitions and questions regarding the legality of the income tax system

as applied, “We are answering those petitions through enforcement actions.”

29. David Cay Johnston’s article reported in the September 17, 2003 publication of The

New York Times (Exhibit 4) also presented the IRS’, as the Government’s Contractor’s,

response to WTP Petitioning process this way:

“Later, an I.R.S. senior spokesman, Terry L. Lemons, said that courts had
upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the agency did not want to waste
time and resources dealing with well-settled issues. Mr. Lemons added that the
recent spate of enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of
abusive tax schemes, and the new agreement with the states, show other ways
that government is answering the petition.”

29
30. As also presented on page 26 of WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004,

Memorandum In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint,24

at the same press conference, IRS senior official, Dale Hart, said the IRS was “after

mailing lists.” All of this is obviously meant to have a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs’

exercise of their fundamental Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances. Dale Hart’s

statement about mailing lists can be seen and heard on the web cast of the 9/16/03 press

conference, which is archived on the Treasury Department’s Internet site, and Plaintiffs

in this case believe such actions to be unlawful; “Where rights secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would

abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) and “The court is to protect

against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” (Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S.

616 (1886).

31. As far as IRS claims “that courts had upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the

agency did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues”, the

IRS Officials are making an excuse for not answering reasonable questions, even when

those reasonable questions are put forth in terms of our First Amendment Right to

Petition for a Redress of Grievances, and a declaration that "the courts have ruled against

these issues" is nothing less than another of those deceptive "Terror Tactics" to induce

“fear” as the IRS mounted its "crusade" against the Plaintiffs as members of We, The

People, (See Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)):

24
See WTP Foundation’s September 30, 2004, Memorandum In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss Amended Complaint,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/CourtFilings/MemoLawOpposition11-11-04.PDF).

30
 "The most authoritative form of such explanation is a congressional report
defining the scope and meaning of proposed legislation. The most authoritative
report is a Conference Report acted upon by both Houses and therefore
unequivocally representing the will of both Houses as the joint legislative body.

No doubt to find failure to file a declaration of estimated income to be a

"substantial underestimate" would be to attribute to Congress a most unlikely
meaning for that phrase in 294 (d) (2) simpliciter. But if Congress chooses by
appropriate means for expressing its [361 U.S. 87, 95] purpose to use language
with an unlikely and even odd meaning, it is not for this Court to frustrate its
purpose. The Court's task is to construe not English but congressional English.
Our problem is not what do ordinary English words mean, but what did
Congress mean them to mean. "It is said that when the meaning of language is
plain we are not to resort to evidence in order to raise doubts. That is rather an
axiom of experience than a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of
persuasive evidence if it exists." Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States,
278 U.S. 41, 48 .

Here we have the most persuasive kind of evidence that Congress did not mean
the language in controversy, however plain it may be to the ordinary user of
English, to have the ordinary meaning. These provisions were first enacted in
the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat. 126, as additions to 294
(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. The Conference Report, H. R. Conf.
Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, both gave
the provision dealing with substantial underestimation of taxes the following
gloss:

"In the event of a failure to file any declaration where one is due, the amount
of the estimated tax for the purposes of this provision will be zero."

The revision of the section eight months later by the Revenue Act of 1943, c. 63,
58 Stat. 21, did not affect its substance, and this provision, therefore, continued
to carry the original gloss. While the Court adverts to this congressional
definition, it disregards its controlling significance. * [361 U.S. 87, 96]
(Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)

32. Apart from the fact that Plaintiffs claim that a disregard of the controlling

significance of the word “income” can result in slavery and/or peonage, which is criminal

in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and which is a subject of this

case, given that, apart from some differences, depending upon reference, pointing to these

provisions as being first enacted in the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, c. 120, 57 Stat.

31
126, as additions to 294 (a) of the IRC of 1939, and the Conference Report, H. R. Conf.

Rep. No. 510, p. 56, and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 221, p. 42, as compared to 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), which 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, and since the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter “C.F.R.”) does

not otherwise define what is meant by “income” (See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189,

206), why would anyone expect the Plaintiffs to believe that the word “income” should

mean anything other than what the Supreme Court had also otherwise consistently

defined the word “income” to mean, which is “profit gained through the sale or

conversion of capital assets” (See Stratton v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399,414 (1913); Doyle

v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179,185 (1918); So. Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918);

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 198 (1920) and Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v.

Smeitanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921).

33. Additionally, given the various classes of citizenship and therefore the various legal

meanings of the terms “Citizen” and “citizen” (e.g., See People v. De Guerra, 40 Cal.

311, 337 (1870); U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588m 590 (1875); Hooven & Allison Co. v.

Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945); State v. Phillips, Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 540, page

941-942 (1975); Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 427, 17 Am. Rep. 738), and that the U.S.

Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally held that regulations cannot exceed the

underlying statutory authority, most workers do not even fit the definition of “employee”

32
under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 3401(c), 3121(d), and 3306(i)), most

personal earnings are not taxable under the internal revenue laws (See 26 C.F.R. § 1.863-

1(c) and 26 C.F.R. 1.861-1 (1956)), and questions as to why the Regulations would be

revised so as to obscure proper references and why any court would disregard the

controlling significance of such terms without a corresponding Constitutional

Amendment as authority by-and-of-itself more than substantiates Plaintiffs’ significant

questions presented in the context of our First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress

of Grievances.

34. Regarding the "861 evidence" in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has never

addressed it, and the various lower court rulings, when they have done anything more

than declare the position "frivolous" or "without merit," have relied exclusively upon the

broadly-worded general definition of "gross income" found in Section 61 (USC, Title 26)

to the exclusion of all else, therein-by avoiding the responsibility to respond to

complaints involving legally cognizable "grievances", and because unsupported

assertions and unexplained conclusions do not constitute a valid substitute for Plaintiffs’

reasonable questions, WTP Foundation sponsored and Plaintiffs signed onto the Petition

for a Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts.

35. Keeping in mind the fact that Plaintiffs have a Constitutional right to Contract, in

which the fruits of their labor is their Property, and that any law which would imply that

they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage can not be definable in terms

other than slavery and/or peonage, and therefore is criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §

33
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)), if Plaintiffs are to ignore the fact that Congress

specifically declared that the word “income” as used in Section 61 of the 1954 Code was

to be interpreted in its “constitutional sense” rather than its ordinary sense, and need only

look to the general statutory definition of "gross income" (as found in Section 61 of the

tax code) in order to determine whether their income is indeed taxable, the following

obvious questions also arise:

36. Why are Plaintiffs to rely only on a section which says nothing at all about who is

receiving income or where it is coming from, while ignoring the part of the law which

specifically deals with such issues (Subchapter N, which begins with Section 861)?

37. If Plaintiffs need look no further than the general definition of "gross income," why

do the past regulations specifically make reference statements like some “income, which

are, under the Constitution, exempt from taxation by the federal Government” (e.g., 26

C.F.R. § 1.312-6(b), 26 C.F.R. § 39.22(b)-1 (1956))?

38. If Section 61 makes all income taxable, no matter where it comes from, why do the

regulations under 861, and more than eighty years of predecessor statutes and regulations,

plainly identified U.S.-source income as being taxable for foreigners, and for certain

Americans with possessions income, while never mentioning Americans who live and

work only in the U.S.?

34
39. If the broad language in Section 61 means that all income is taxable, no matter where

it comes from, again, keeping in mind that slavery and/or peonage is criminal in the

context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, why did a Supreme Court justice state

that, "'From whatever source derived,' as it is written in the Sixteenth Amendment [which

is where the wording in Section 61 came from], does not mean from whatever source

derived" (Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), dissenting opinion)?

40. Court rulings concerning 861 have never addressed ANY of the issues or sections

cited therein. But, more importantly, given that 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)), and that “It is not the function of our

Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the [339 U.S.

382, 443] citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” (See Communications

Assn. v. Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950)), and referring to reasonable questions as being

"frivolous conclusions" or "without merit" is not an adequate substitute for a Redress of

Grievances, the Plaintiffs as members of WTP Organization believe that the provision of

reasonable answers is but the first step in satisfying the plain language of the Petition

clause, which is “a Redress of Grievances.”

35
EXHAUSTION OF OTHER REMEDIES

41. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs have focused on the fact the First

Amendment itself guarantees the Right of the People to hold the Government accountable

to the Constitution in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving

constitutional torts, and given that the Government, and Government Contractor (IRS) in

this instance, would not even enter into discussion of the matters addressed through WTP

Organization’s proper Petitions our Constitutional Right to a Redress of Grievances is not

even recognized, let alone satisfied, and the aforementioned tact approval for the

Government Contractor’s retaliatory illicit activity is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

and particularly pursuant to the provisions of Subchapter I of Chapter 21, and in bringing

this case to this Honorable Court as a Qui Tam Action, Plaintiffs also believe that it is the

duty of the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department or Private Attorney General(s) to

request a Grand Jury whereby monetary damages will be further set forth.

42. Being signed onto all of the Petitions and Class Action Complaint put forth by WTP

Organization, Plaintiff William M. Greene’s contact with the IRS was limited to

responding to their letters (e.g., to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 on form letter 2797 (CG)

(Rev. )3-199) on 09/01/02 with short statements asserting knowledge of the IRS’ fraud

(Exhibit 5) and phone calls (e.g., from Ms. Graham, Employee #1601098, on 04/30/04),

and Plaintiffs did not immediately respond with WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication

36
entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”,25 whereby all members were encouraged to

appropriately use the suggested “Draft Letter”26 and its three attachments, which included

a Memorandum of Law regarding the Right to Petition,27 a re-structured, comprehensive

set of legal Facts and Beliefs,28 and a further statement of legal facts addressing the vital

issue of IRS’ Lack of Federal Legal Jurisdiction,29 to enforce the tax upon ordinary

Americans; and these three documents themselves contain most of the references of law

which Plaintiffs will be using throughout this case.

43. Nevertheless, beginning with Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS,

dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6), which was submitted as Plaintiffs’ statement in lieu of a

tax return for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and for all future years, … and further

explained that as he understands it he had no income as defined by Federal L1475

legislation and IRS Code, and that in the context of that letter he had returned the

preparer’s assessments for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, as Attachments, stating “No

Answers No Taxes”, as well as to state that, if the IRS does not provide him with

25
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication entitled “Tell IRS To “Drop Dead”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/update09-27-03.htm);
26
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication whereby all members were encouraged to appropriately
use the suggested “Draft Letter”, (http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/LetterToIRS.htm);
27
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Memorandum of Law regarding the Right to Petition,
“STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS REGARDING THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach1-petition.pdf);
28
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and
Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO
STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf);
29
See WTP Organization’s 9/27/03 publication: Re-structured, comprehensive set of legal Facts and
Beliefs, “STATEMENT OF FACTS AND BELIEFS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO
STOP FILING AND PAYING THE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX”,
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtplawsuit/documents/dd-attach2-537.pdf);

37
reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the

deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction

that requires him to properly respond, he would assume that the preparer did not in fact

have the authority and the IRS Office has therefore procedurally rescinded that notice of

deficiency in accordance with Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 63, Subchapter B, Sec. 6212-

(d). (See Pages #15 & 19 - Exhibit 6, pgs. 2 & 6 of 12).

44. In that July 22, 2004 letter, the Plaintiff also stated that if and when the IRS Office

responds with that reference to the law requiring him to file, or responds to the

"Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual Income Tax" he would of

course comply with the law, but further stated that such compliance would be only as that

of a Slave shackled by that law, given that, as outlined in his letter, the IRS’ activities

constitute a violation of my right to religious freedom, and in paragraph #22 of his letter,

the Plaintiff also stated that "if I am presented with such a law I hereby reserve the right

to submit my own income tax assessment for the aforesaid years, which will of course

include whatever credits due me for the loss of my home, etc." (See Pages #19 & 20 -

Exhibit 6, pgs. 7 & 8 of 12).

45. As such, with the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS,

dated July 22, 2004 he indicated he contested the “routine practice” of filing the

substitute assessments, and reserved the right to submit his own income tax assessment

for the aforesaid years, which will of course include whatever credits due for the loss

Plaintiffs’ home, etc., and within the context of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s letter dated

38
September 28, 2007 (Exhibit 12), she explained the substitute assessments which “the IRS

has been sending illustrates how that process works, but these mailings raise other

questions about the lack of sufficient factual basis for information submitted on the

substitute returns, given that the IRS of all agencies should know that a truck driver’s

gross compensation for labor is offset by approximately 40% in fuel alone. Add to that

lease payments, bobtail and cargo insurance, maintenance and breakdown costs, tolls and

food and a truck drivers real compensation for labor is often less than $0.15 to $0.25

(cents) on the dollar. In fact in my husband’s case, because of the declining business

climate to provide pre-manufactured fixtures to newly developing shopping malls and

schools following 9/11, we could no longer even make our weekly lease-purchase

payments of almost $1,000.00 per week. We had to return all of our leased equipment,

thereby losing all of our investment and had to start all over again with contracts in my

name because of my husband’s resulting credit problems and we have been slowly

working ourselves out of the credit crunch ever since.” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6

of 7).

46. Apart from Plaintiffs’ personal letters to the IRS, even though Congress enacted §

6330 – along with § 6320 – in order to provide certain procedural safeguards for

“taxpayers” facing IRS collection activity, and Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over

challenges to the IRS’s CDP determination of an income tax liability (26 U.S.C. §§

6213(a), 6330(d)(1), 7442; 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.6330-1(f)(1), 601.102(b)(1)(i)), Plaintiffs

39
have reason to believe that the IRS may not have legislative and territorial jurisdiction30

((U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 17; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549

(1995), Adams v. U.S. 319 U.S. 312 (1943), and 40 U.S.C § 255 (now 40 U.S.C. § 3111

and 40 U.S.C. § 3112)), and therefore are “not taxpayers” as defined under the income

tax law.

47. “The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional

as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own

industry” (48 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Series, Section 2, page 80), and given that,

Plaintiffs were born and lived most of their lives in the State of New York, and although

they are currently employed as truck drivers involved in interstate commerce, fuel taxes

are paid both at the pump and through their employer,31 and it has only been a condition

of their employment that they furnish their own IFTA which required a EIN for the

purpose of the payment of the Heavy Highway Use Tax directly to the IRS,32 rather than

30
See “[ Footnote 23 ] There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862,
ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced.” (See
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 292 (1979).
31
The collection of a percentage of the surcharge, is no more than a federal tax on interstate commerce,
which Plaintiffs are not trying to claim in this action to be an invalid exercise of either Congress' commerce
or taxing power. Cf. United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44 -45 (1950); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,
301 U.S. 548, 581 -583 (1937), unless Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the
fuel taxes collected at the pump and State Fees paid through their employer’s payroll services should be
inappropriately used to defined them as a taxpayer in the context of the income tax laws.
32
Should the Plaintiffs admittance of being a taxpayer within the context of the Heavy Highway Use Tax
be used to argue that the Plaintiffs must therefore be defined as a taxpayer in other contexts such as the
income tax laws, Plaintiffs reserve the right to argue this point as well, given that, although in 1796, the
United States Supreme Court in Hylton v. U. S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796) finding was that the tax was on the
“use” of the carriage rather than the carriage itself and therefore an “excise” tax which did not need to be
apportioned, an argument within the context of this suit will be based upon Hylton’s fraud upon the courts
and the American people given that Hylton only owned one carriage involving a $16.00 annual tax but lied
about the number of carriages, alleging that Hylton owned 200 carriages to increase the amount in
controversy equal to $3200.00, and thereby qualifying the case to be herd in the Federal Circuit Court (now
the District Court) because the case in controversy involved an amount greater than $3000.00. Originally
filed in the New York Court and then removed to the Circuit Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, Mr.
Hylton agreed to pay $16.00, the amount of the tax on the one carriage he actually owned. Hylton v. U. S.,

40
through their employer, but Plaintiffs do not and have never carried their own interstate

authority, are not a possessions corporation, do not have employees, and therefore are not

“subject” in terms of the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others.33 That is,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.” (United States Constitution, 9th Amendment)

Such 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).

48. In this context, it is Plaintiffs understanding that IRC §§ 6001, 6011, 6012(a) are the

regulations which address liability for the income tax relative to the subject of record

keeping, where for example, Plaintiffs have read 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1 through the end

and 31.6001-1 through the end and find that the payee and employee aren't required to

file returns except to secure refunds, and although Section 6001 states that “Every person

liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such

records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and

regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe…” and “The only records

which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with

3 U.S. 171 (1796) has subsequently been used as the basis for the misuse of the Excise Tax in the United
States. Had Hylton not fabricated an excess of damages to qualify the case to be adjudicated in the Circuit
Court, this case would have stayed in the State Courts, and the tax would have been declared invalid in
New York and the Supremes would not have accepted jurisdiction on the Writ of Error.
33
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in
themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in
this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance,
except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege
of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their
birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original
foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.” Butcher’s Union Co. v Crescent
City Co. 111 U.S. 746 (1884).

41
charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c),

and copies of statements furnished by employees under Section 6053(a).” Moreover,

while Section 6011 states that, “(a) General Rule. When required by regulations

prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or

for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and

regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or

statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . .

(g) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift

taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C”, and then

actually look to those subparts B and C referred to at IRC Section 6011(g) contain IRC

Sections 6012 through 6017a, and in this respect knowledge of how to determine whether

or not the individual is “liable for” a tax is displayed at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states

that: “(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed

thereon by section 5001(a)(1)” and further, Congress displayed its knowledge of how to

make someone liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that “(a)(1) The

manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be

liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701”, such that “persons made liable” at

IRC Sections 5005 and 5703 for the taxes imposed at IRC Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701,

respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make

returns and keep records. Finally, given that Section 1461 of Title 27 is the only place in

Subtitle A of the IRC where Congress used the words “liable for”, that means that the

person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a withholding agent for nonresident

aliens, and although Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the

42
withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, “liable for” any income tax imposed in

Subtitle A, such that the canon of statutory construction, “expressio unius est exclusio

alterius”, which means the “express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of

another” has been the underlying construct motivating Plaintiffs to sign onto the first

Petition for Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned

tax on labor) as well as their personal letters to the IRS requesting any reference to the

law requiring them to [keep records and/or] file. (See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 -

Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12; Pages #26, 27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4;

Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3; Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6

of 8,; Page #41 - Exhibit 10, pg. 1 of 9).

49. Plaintiffs’ beliefs are also supported by the fact that Plaintiffs in this case are signed

onto the Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-

apportioned tax on labor), which questions whether or not they are legally defined as tax

payers, and are also signed onto the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic

Right-to-Petition Lawsuit against the United States of America, the U.S. Treasury

Department, the IRS, and the U.S. Department of Justice, We the People v. United States

(USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) which SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25,

2008, voted to not hear in spite of it’s Constitutional duty, as well as the fact that the IRS

has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to the law

requiring them to file, and as such have historically contested the IRS’s filing of

substitute assessments.

43
50. As long as declaratory relief remains unavailable34, Plaintiffs have also maintained

their right to personally complain to the IRS Commissioner(s) by letters about the

extensive irreparable harm they are suffering as a result of the on-going IRS

administrative actions taken against them, in terms of those administrative actions being a

coordinated, broad based, enforcement program of malicious intent that is impeding the

administration of justice without judicial review and abridging Plaintiffs’ Inalienable

Rights to freedom from a government that would infringe or erode their rights of

association, petition, speech, privacy, information, property, due process and religious

freedom.

51. Plaintiffs are asserting their Constitutional Rights in this matter and from their

review of 28 U.S.C. § 451, and the Reference Notes (See 80th Congress Senate Report

No. 1559) which indicate that all of the provisions of this Section 451 which related to

the Tax Court were eliminated by Senate amendment, believe that the Tax Court is not

authorized to consider issues dealing with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights, especially

when the IRS has consistently failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests for any reference to

the law requiring them to file, but even if the Tax Court may indeed be authorized to hear

constitutional claims, issues such as exhaustion of administrative remedies are

meaningless, in the face of WTP Organization’s Petitions for Redress of Grievances, and

particularly the Petition relating to the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor and the fact

remains the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has admitted in public form, not once but

34
Cf. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 430 (1963) ("[U]nder the conditions of modern government,
litigation may well be the sole practicable avenue open to a minority to petition for redress of grievances.").

44
twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint) that IRS

administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are retaliatory acts, and as evidenced

by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint under Article III of the

Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’

participating organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint), as well as the

IRS’s intentional obstruction of justice and unlawful abridgement of certain Inalienable

Rights, including recent Summons and Notice of Levies served on Plaintiffs Employer

and Notice of Levies served on two of the Plaintiffs Banks, all done without judicial

review and formal orders issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct

violation of the Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. For

these reasons alone, apart from any other evidence of complaint Plaintiffs bring before

this Honorable Court, issues of legal obligation and authority with respect to those

administering the body of Regulations used by IRS employees are clearly biased on the

part of the Government Contractor (the IRS), such that Plaintiffs believe that an

exception to the exhaustion of the administrative remedy should be found to be an

unconstitutional application of the IRC where an adverse decision would be certain

because the IRS has not only articulated a very clear position on the issue but even gone

so far as to falsify damages in this very District Court to qualify for a complaint under

Article III of the Constitution, wherein-by the IRS has not only demonstrated it would be

unwilling to consider and respond to requests involving constitutionality of the tax

liability but the bias in denial of the individuals’ Constitutional Rights appears to be

further demonstrated by Tax court decisions holding constitutional defenses to be

45
meritless (See Russell S. Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98

(January 21, 2000)):

“As a threshold matter, we observe that petitioner's efforts to shift the burden of
proof to respondent on constitutional grounds are meritless. The burden of proof
rests on the taxpayer, except in certain situations not relevant here. See Rule
142(a). Furthermore, this burden of proof has been uniformly applied, regardless
of whether the taxpayer's arguments addressed the amount or the
constitutionality of the tax. See, e.g., Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939,
941 (9th Cir. 1985); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 405 (1984); Kish v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-16; Minguske v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-573; Frami v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-509; Fisher v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-277.”

52. The government’s unwillingness to answer legitimate questions and be held

accountable to the Constitution is one thing, but the lengths that the IRS, as the

government’s contractor, was and is apparently willing to go to silence anyone who

questioned its power in the context of the petitions, supports Plaintiffs’ belief that

pursuing available administrative remedies for individuals facing IRS administrative

actions and collection activity would have been clearly useless, and that the ultimate

denial of relief was/is an unconstitutional certainty, and Plaintiffs’ beliefs in this matter

are not only supported by the fact that Plaintiffs are listed on the Petitions for a Redress

of Grievances involving constitutional torts, but that given the fact that "The loss of First

Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes

irreparable injury." (See Ellrod v. Burns 427 U.S. 347 (1976)), Plaintiffs have been

signed on to the Class Action Lawsuit the WTP Foundation's historic Right-to-Petition

Lawsuit, believing that the only appropriate action was/is for Plaintiffs to await the

outcome of the WTP Foundation's Right-to-Petition Lawsuit; We the People v. United

46
States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), however SCOTUS, without comment, on

February 25, 2008, voted to not hear the appeal in spite of it’s Constitutional duty.

53. As Plaintiffs understand it, the DC Circuit Court decisions have held, in effect, that

even if the Plaintiffs have a Right to Petition to hold the Government accountable to the

Constitution, we do not have a Right to a Redress of constitutional torts (let alone a

Response from the Government to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts), and,

citing the Anti-Injunction Act, the Plaintiffs could not expect the judicial department to

assist the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs were: a) attacked by the Executive Branch35 for

withdrawing their financial support until their Grievances were Redressed; and b), if, in

reaction to the retaliation, the Plaintiffs were to approach the Judicial Branch for an order

blocking any further retaliatory actions by the Executive Branch until Plaintiffs’

Grievances were Redressed such relief would not be granted.

54. However, this action is not being brought against the Executive Branch, but against

the IRS as the Government’s Contractor, and as an empirical matter, the DC Circuit

Court decision conflicts with a long line of Supreme Court decisions that stand for the

proposition that no Act of Congress (including the IRC) can trump the Constitution, but

in citing the Anti-Injunction Act as the reason for being barred from protecting the

Plaintiffs from such retaliation because of the Act’s provision that “no suit for the
35
The question of whether the people’s fear of government should ever be allowed/justified is one which
has been considered as the very basis of American government. See John Adams, Thoughts on Government
(Boston, 1776), rpt. In Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, eds., AMERICAN POLITICAL WRITING OF
THE FOUNDING ERA 401, 402 (Liberty Fund 1983) (“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it
is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable,
that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it”); available
online at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/filmmore/ps_thoughts.html.

47
purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any

court by any person”, the decision itself implies that Acts of Congress, which may or

may not be founded upon the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, can

trump the Constitution and whether that decision is viewed in terms "Inalienable Rights"

were thought to be the Natural Rights to "Life, Liberty, and Estate (or property)", which

at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence were clearly understood as

Rights independent of positive law Inalienable Rights, or in terms of "Unalienable

Rights" as it was so changed to by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration,

the Plaintiffs in this action assert that the axiom of Inalienable rights was written into the

Bill of Rights as the Ninth Amendment Rights “retained by the people” and in doing so

believe that the DC Circuit Court decision conflicts the Fundamental, Individual Rights

that the Courts are expressly authorized to protect. That is, “Where rights secured by the

Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would

abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

55. In any event, Plaintiffs in this case do not have a traceable lineage to those who were

chatteled and released to a higher standard of living as a result of the Thirteenth

Amendment and thereafter afforded other rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and

therefore are not “persons under the law” and are “not subject” to the kind of redefinition

of citizenship set forth in Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, and being signed

on to all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances put forth by WTP Organization,

have a Constitutional Right to Contract and their labor as their Property, such that any

law which would imply that they only have such Rights so as long as they pay a

48
percentage can not be definable in terms other than slavery and/or peonage, and

therefore, 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)).

56. In fact as this case proceeds, Plaintiffs will base their legal arguments upon the

information presented in WTP Organization’s publication entitled “The Legal Authority

Of The IRS And The Income Tax”36 which was submitted to Representative Roscoe

Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr.

Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002, in support of Plaintiffs’

belief that a choice to keep expense records, apart from whether or not they actually keep

such expense records, is personal and private and that the IRS nor anyone else has a right

to know how they are supporting themselves and keeping a roof over their head, even if it

is on wheels, who their friends and associates are/were, whether or not they have/had any

health issues and who their doctors are/were, whether and why they paid money to clinics

and hospitals, who their telephone and IT service providers are, how much they paid to

lease their truck and for fuel and maintenance, whether or not they insured their truck and

car, and/or where they shopped for food and how much they spent, etc., and as such

believe that they have already provided the IRS with much more information than they

are actually entitled to under the law.

36
See WTP Organization’s publication entitled “The Legal Authority Of The IRS And The Income Tax”
which was submitted to Representative Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Attorney General John Ashcroft, Treasury
Secretary Paul O’Neil and Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, Asst. to the President, on March 16, 2002,
(www.givemeliberty.org/post-hearing/HearingQsToBartlett4-4-02.PDF);

49
PLAINTIFFS’ REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THAT THE IRS PROVIDE ANY
REFERENCE OF LAW REQUIRING THEM TO FILE

57. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004 (Exhibit 6)

was followed by Plaintiff’s second letter dated January 31, 2005 (Exhibit 7), third letter

dated July 27, 2005 (Exhibit 8), forth letter dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), fifth letter

dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was Response

letter to the IRS mailing of the 6700 suit (Exhibit 11), and a seventh letter dated

September 28, 2007 by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene (Exhibit 12).

58. Knowing that silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral

duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading and

refusing to cave into psychological intimidation or deceptive tactics calculated to

overcome the Plaintiffs’ “free will", Plaintiff William M. Greene had personally and

repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides Plaintiffs with

the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do so

(See Pages #14, 15, 18, 19, 20 & 23 - Exhibit 6, pgs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 10 of 12, Pages #26,

27 & 29 - Exhibit 7, pgs. 1, 2 & 4 of 4, Pages #30 & 31 - Exhibit 8, pgs. 2 & 3 of 3,

Pages #34, 35 & 38 - Exhibit 9, pgs 2, 3 & 6 of 8, Page #41 - Exhibit 10, pg. 1 of 9),

and following the Plaintiffs’ claim of a “notorious default” with respect to IRS’ failure to

respond with an appropriate reference of law requiring them to file and/or assume a

liability in these matters (See Pages #57, 58 & 61 - Exhibit 11, pgs. 7, 8 & 11 of 15),

which itself was a response letter to the IRS having mailed the copy of the case against

50
Plaintiffs’ participating organization in which damages were clearly falsified, Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene also personally notified the IRS “If the court provides a ruling with

respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in the matters and deems

it appropriate, after I have requested and the court has reviewed a Bill of Particulars

related to subjects already outlined in the petition for redress involving tax provisions of

the Constitution and defining the specific offense statute that created the liability for me

to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax Return and the court finds I am actually required

(liable) under the law to comply, I will ...” (See Page #71 - Exhibit 12, pg. 6 of 7), but the

IRS has not respond accordingly in a lawful manner, and in the face of such fraud, IRS’

“enforcement actions” are, in effect, prohibited retaliatory actions, infringing on

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right to Petition the government for a Redress of

Grievances.

REVENUE OFFICER EVEN SOUGHT TO INTIMIDATE PLAINTIFFS BY

PROVIDING THEM WITH A COPY OF DECISION & ORDER AGAINST
PLANITIFFS’ PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATION THAT IS/WAS BASED UPON
IRS FALSIFICATION OF DAMAGES & RESPONSE TO IRS

59. In short, the IRS has been sending very ominous and threatening “enforcement”

letters to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Banks and Employer, including their own personal copy of

the 6700 suit against Robert Schulz and WTP Foundation, which falsely characterizes the

promotion of the First Amendment Petition process as a “promotion of an abusive tax

shelter,” characterizing Plaintiffs as well as the thousands of people who have signed the

Petitions for Redress as “investors” in the “abusive tax shelter,” and requesting full

information about the people who had signed the Petitions for Redress, full information

51
about the source of funds used to finance Plaintiffs to Petition the Government for

Redress of grievances, and so forth, and yet, to date, the Plaintiffs have not received any

responses from the IRS Office either showing them the authority delegated to the

preparer by the Secretary to prepare the deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s

geographical and personam jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file, nor has

the IRS responded to the "Statement of Facts and Beliefs Regarding the Individual

Income Tax”, and absent a sufficient response, Plaintiffs continue to hold the

Government and its’ Contractors accountable to the Constitution and to the Bill of Rights

in terms of the proper Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts.

"Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the
meanings that fraud bears [483 U.S. 350, 372] in the statute, see United States
v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate concealment
of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a
fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who
appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from
them he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel
to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is
concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations."
McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304,
307.

60. And, following the Give Me Liberty (GML) 2007 conference event and Right-to-

Petition “V” Protest in Washington on March 29-31, 2007, on April 2, 2007 Plaintiff

William M. Greene responded to a phone call from the person who identified herself as

Holly Nolan, but did not provide her Federal Employee Identification Number, who

informed the Plaintiff that she was about to initiate administrative actions, after which the

Plaintiff informed her that both he and his wife are signed onto all of the Petitions and

Lawsuit (USDC Case # 04-cv-01211) put forth by WTP Organization, that Plaintiffs have

52
been exercising their Constitutional Rights with respect to these matters, and that it was

his understanding that all administrative actions taken without judicial review and formal

order issued by an Article III Federal Court would constitute a direct violation of the

Privacy and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution, and Plaintiff followed

up with his forth letter to the IRS, dated April 13, 2007 (Exhibit 9), addressed to

Commissioner Everson and Ms. Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case

No. 04-0196-cv) thusly:

From the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv):

"The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we
rely now, can be stated thus; any legislative scheme that denies subjects an
opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing
to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties
`so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,' Oklahoma Operating Co. v.
Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." [Page 10].

61. In response to the Plaintiff’s April 13, 2007 letter to Commissioner Everson and Ms.

Nolan that referenced the decision (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv)37, IRS Officer

Holly L. Nolan finally provided her Federal Employee Identification Number, and as a

matter of the response she did begin to initiate administrative actions against Plaintiff

William M. Greene which the Plaintiff contends are occurring under the Color of Law.

62. In any event, following notice by IRS Officer Holly L. Nolan of her intent to retaliate

against the Plaintiffs via administrative agency actions, Plaintiff responded with his fifth
37
Other courts have also ruled that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Code" are only
"directory in nature" and not mandatory [See Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1962);
Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980); and United States v. Goldstein, 342 F. Supp. 661
(E.D.N.Y. 1972)], and further have held that the provisions of the "Internal Revenue Manual" are not
mandatory and lack the force of law. [See Boulez v. C.I.R., 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987); United States
v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967,(6th Cir. 1982)]. These decisions further support the fact that the provisions of
the IRC may not be relied upon as the legal authority for any part of a collection action as well.

53
letter dated May 5, 2007 (Exhibit 10), and respectfully, said that he has not and will not

give into the unconstitutional actions of the IRS, and the Court's reaffirmation of Case

No. 04-0196-cv is clear: “any legislative scheme that forces a taxpayer to make a

‘Hobson's choice’ between either capitulating to an IRS administrative demand, or risk

bearing the pains of IRS's wrath if [s]he refuses to comply -- without access to judicial

review, violates the Constitution”, and following Plaintiffs’ refusal to accept liability

pending a Redress of Grievances, or even a valid reference to the law requiring him to

file and/or assume a liability in these matters, IRS Officer Nolan, did in fact fulfill her

threat of retaliation such that an IRS correspondence, Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of

Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 (Exhibits 13 & 14), was sent to Plaintiff’s mailing address

(See Page #75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 1 of 3), and it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the

same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers, and thereafter, Plaintiff’s

present employer, with which the Plaintiff did not and never did have a contract, notified

him that they had received a copy of the same. Form 668-A(ICS), of course, is but one

example wherein-by the Plaintiff contends the IRS actions are occurring under the Color

of Law, in part because these documents sent to the Plaintiff do not have a valid signature

(See Page #73 - Exhibit 13, pg. 1 of 2; Page #76 - Exhibit 14, pg. 2 of 3) and the only

authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property such as wages, salaries,

etc., is presented in Section 6331(a) and the fact that the statement of that limitation of

that authority appears nonexistent or absent (See Page #74 - Exhibit 13, pg. 2 of 2; Page

#75 - Exhibit 14, pg. 3 of 3), wrongfully and even criminally, indicates that, by mere

copy of a “Notice of Levy” the IRS had the right to collect.

54
63. Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter to the IRS was dated September 6, 2007

(Exhibit 11) and was written in response to an August 15, 2007 mailing to both Plaintiffs,

from the person who in the past has identified herself as Holly Nolan, Revenue Officer,

Employee Number: 14-02284, which included within a copy of Case 1:07-cv-00352-

TJM-RFT38, Document 30, Filed 08/09/2007, the 25 page Decision and Order, signed by

Thomas J. McAvoy, Senior United States District Judge, and within that response letter

the Plaintiff explained that “apart from the fact that this “Notice of Levy” was also

mailed to a past employer and one employer with which the Plaintiff does not and never

did have a contract with, it is merely a “Notice of Levy” which does not comply with Due

Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all unless there is an actual levy from a

court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp.”

64. Within the context of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s sixth letter, he also commented

on the fact that he was never formally noticed of a Tax Lien, which the Plaintiff became

aware of the first change to his public records, such that on 07/12/2007 Tax Lien

information had been added to or changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of

“05/01/2007”, with a Court/Case Number of “Franklin County Court/0731”, a Release

38
A suit which Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, believe was/is to justify the Government’s
Contractor’s impermissible retaliation, and divert attention away from the IRS’ unwillingness to be held
accountable by the Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts put forth by WTP Organization, in which the
Government Contractor (the IRS) labeled the People’s campaign in support of the enforcement of the
Petition Clause of the First Amendment a “promotion of an abusive tax shelter,” and one in which all
members of WTP Organization know that the Government officially adorned its attack by “mixing apples
with oranges” by taking what they called damages in the contents of the "Blue Folder” from the Right to
Petition program in which We, The People, have asserted our legal rights to our property - namely, our
money - pending the Redress of Grievances, and listed them as if they were damages associated with the
contents of the "Blue Folder." But, the suit was not about the Right to Petition program. The suit was about
the damages associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder." And, without damages being clearly
associated with the contents of the "Blue Folder", as required by Article III of the Constitution, we, as
members of WTP Organization, are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find that there is no case now
that Robert Schulz et al., has also outlined this fact for the appeal.

55
Date of “N/A”, with the Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See

Page #57 – Exhibit #11, 7 of 15).

65. As well as the fact that the Plaintiff, William M. Greene, without being formally

noticed of a Tax Lien by the IRS, also became aware that there had been another change

to his public records, such that on 07/29/2007 Tax Lien information had been added to or

changed on his credit file to indicate that on the Date of “05/01/2007”, with a Court/Case

Number of “Albany County Court House/9946543”, a Release Date of “N/A”, with the

Amount being “$171,000”, and Creditor Class of “Federal” (See Page #57 – Exhibit #11,

7 of 15).

66. As a matter of process, Plaintiff William M. Greene has also requested a Document

Search for the Document Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same

including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18,

2007, with the Amount being “$171,479.86” (Exhibit 15). The Notice of Federal Tax

Lien shown on (Page #79 - Exhibit #15, 2 of 2) does not even have a valid signature

because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly Nolan.

67. Looking into the matter further, Plaintiff went online to the New York State

Secretary of State's Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State

Secretary of State's UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 16)

which is not surprising given that this issue has yet to be considered by the federal court,

but further validation of the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered by the

56
Clerk’s record indicating that there is not a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving

a Federal Tax Lien (Exhibit 17) against Plaintiff William M. Greene nor Plaintiff Karen

Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also submitted an

IRS FOIA Request (Exhibit 18) to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,

Philadelphia, PA 19106, and the details derived from the decoded file will be presented to

this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so as to add

additional Causes of Actions when that information is available.

68. Moreover, in at lease two of his letters to the IRS, Plaintiff William M. Greene

informed the IRS that they are already in a “notorious default” with respect to these

matters, and in one of those letters the Plaintiff informed Commissioner Everson and

Revenue Officer Nolan that the “IRS’ notorious default” in these matters has a much

broader application, for while the IRS has been claiming that the many are in default,

which appears itself to be an actionable denial of due process on the part of the IRS, the

Government and the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has been in “notorious default”

for quite some time now, by not answering to the WTP Organization's petitions hand

delivered to them, at every step, all pushing the IRS toward this simple work-book

Common Law default. Explaining further that, given that this Common Law default has

been accomplished openly in numerous public records and in the context of the petitions

we are signed on to (see Pages #57 & 58 - Exhibit #11, pgs. 7 & 8 of 15), which involve

our First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the

Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting from the Government's violations

of the war powers, privacy, money and tax provisions of the Constitution, as well as the

57
President's failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws, in fact, our actions with

respect to these matters meet all the requirements for the IRS to be held in default, and

notoriously so, in the open public record:

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to
speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. .
. We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is
based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to
expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection
activities." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d
1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

69. Similarly, a seventh letter dated September 28, 2007, which was the first and only

letter authored by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, addressed to Acting Commissioner Linda

E. Stiff and Revenue Officer Nolan, including a copy of WTP Organization’s Black

Folder39 (Exhibit 19) in response to the letters, Substitute Assessments, Notice of Tax

Lien (Exhibits 20 & 21), Notice of Tax Levy (Exhibits 22 & 23), and Summons’ sent to

Plaintiffs’ employer (Exhibits 24 & 25), as well as the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP

Organization which Plaintiffs are members, indicated that, especially in light of Ms.

Nolan’s having sent Plaintiffs the copy of the § 6700 suit against WTP Foundation of

which Plaintiffs are a part, clearly, even that could have served no other purpose than to

harass and intimidate us as petitioners of the government with regard to the constitutional

torts.

39
Exhibit #19 annexed hereto is a copy of the only brochure ever published by the WTP Organization. It
describes the commitment of the WTP Foundation to civic education, the commitment of the WTP
Congress to civic action, and the emphasis the WTP organization has been placing on enforcement of the
People’s Rights and the Government’s obligations under the Constitution, especially the Petition Clause of
the First Amendment.

58
70. Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS was also sent by

facsimile to (1) Mr. Robert L. Schulz, 2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804,

(2) Mr. Mark Lane, Attorney for We The People Foundation For, & We The People

Congress, Inc., 2523 Brunswick Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22903, (3) Hon. George W.

Bush, President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20500, (4) Mr. Michael Peroutka, Peroutka 2004, Suite #303, 8028

Ritchie Highway, Pasadena, MD 21122, (5) Rep. Ron Paul, Ron Paul 2008, 850 N.

Randolph St., Suite 122, Arlington, VA, 22203, (6) Mr. Burr V. Deitz, 444 Whitehall

Road, Albany, New York 12208, (7) Hon. Henry M. Paulson Jr., United States Treasury

Secretary, Main Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, (8)

Hon. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of

Justice-Main, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20530, (9) Ms. Nadine

Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY

10004, (10) Ms. Donna Lieberman, Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union,

125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004, and (11) Ms. Melanie Trimble,

Executive Director, New York Civil Liberties Union Capital Region Chapter, 90 State

Street, Room 518, Albany, NY 12207, in her effort to urge the IRS to obey the

Constitution and answer the questions presented in WTP Organization’s Petitions, but

being aware of the fact that, “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary

but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant

circumstances and likely consequences” (Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742) and the IRS’ past

history of abusing the constitutional rights of the people, Plaintiff wrote that the IRS

should comply with the ruling from the decision of Schulz v. IRS (Case No. 04-0196-

59
cv), to ensure Plaintiffs due process rights in these matters: stating that if the court

provides a ruling with respect to our guaranteed First Amendment Right of Petitioning in

the matters and deems it appropriate, after Plaintiffs have requested and the court has

reviewed a Bill of Particulars related to subjects already outlined in the Petition for

Redress involving tax provisions of the Constitution and defining the specific offense

statute that created the liability for Plaintiffs to pay income tax and file a 1040 Tax

Return and the court finds Plaintiffs are actually required (liable) under the law to

comply, we, the Plaintiffs in this case, will of course thereupon [hire a competent

professional to compile and] produce our records of gross compensation for our labor and

expense records. (see Page #71 - Exhibit #12, pg., 6 of 7)

71. Instead of responding to proper statements of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene in these

matters, in a letter dated January 11, 2008, Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance

Services, informed the Plaintiff that a penalty of $5,000.00 (See Page #117 – Exhibit #26,

pg., 4 of 5) in addition to all other penalties was imposed (Exhibit 26) as a response

Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, which Field Director

incorrectly states as having been dated October 1, 2007. As such that, Plaintiffs maintain

that IRS administrative actions continue to be carried out, without any response from the

Government to the subject Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and although the

Field Director did site numerous sections from Title 26, none of sections quoted contain

any reference to the law which actually pertains to the Plaintiffs in terms of the authority

delegated to the IRS and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam

jurisdiction that requires them to respond and/or file. Moreover, although Field Director

Slaughter asserted some very general rights of investigation and enforcement by the IRS,

60
his response constitutes yet another failure of the IRS to respond with an appropriate

reference of law requiring the Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability in these matters

and given that the IRS has once again refused to respond accordingly in a lawful manner,

in the face of such fraud, Plaintiffs continue to maintain that IRS’ “enforcement actions”

are, in effect, prohibited retaliatory actions, infringing on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment

Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances.

72. In fact, Plaintiffs have also been unable to find any reference to indicate that Title 26

has actually been enacted into positive law, and the Title itself appears to be written to

primarily address the responsibilities of the IRS employees with respect to those who are

"liable" to file, and as previously stated, Plaintiffs pay the Heavy Highway Use tax and

pay road taxes due at the pump and through deductions whereby road taxes are paid

through payroll deductions, but a matter of law revenues received by the Plaintiffs in this

action are not taxed or taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax laws and

regulations thereunder promulgated, nor are any revenues received by the Plaintiffs for

their labor within the powers of the federal government to tax and that the revenues

received by the Plaintiffs for their labor are exempt from taxation by excise under the

Constitution of the United States, and therefore, an essential element of the IRS’ claim of

a "tax due and owing" is absent, and it is respectfully submitted that if Field Director,

Henry Slaughter, or anyone else for that matter, had provided any reference to the law

requiring Plaintiffs to file and/or assume a liability with respect to the income tax, that

would have been the only appropriate response, for as it stands, Plaintiffs are still left to

believe the statement presented in the context of Senator Inouye’s letter (Exhibit 3) which

61
reads in part “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service,

there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay

income taxes" and that they are “not a taxpayer in the context of the income tax statutes”,

and therefore, Plaintiffs believe they are not liable to file and not “subject” to the many

enactments under Title 26. That is not to say that Plaintiffs have been unable to find any

statutes of liability, for the four categories for Federal Income Tax liability which the

Plaintiffs are aware of are (1) Non-resident aliens with domestic source income, (2)

Foreign corporations with domestic source income, (3) Withholding agents for either of

the above, and (4) U.S. citizens residing abroad with foreign earned income. Moreover,

although Section 3401(a) does define the term “wages” as meaning all remuneration for

services performed by an “employee” for his “employer”, the definition of “employee”

given in Section 3401(c) for the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or

elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the

District of Columbia, or any one or more of the foregoing, including an officer of a

(government) corporation, such that, the Field Director’s specific response, does not

appear to Plaintiffs to have been offered in the context of Field Director, Henry

Slaughter’s actual authority, and Plaintiffs are therefore left to conclude that the Field

Director’s actions, as well as all of the other IRS administrative actions that have been

taken before and after the Field Director’s response, are in direct violation of the privacy

and due process clauses, without having first sought judicial review and formal order

issued by an Article III Federal Court.

62
73. That is, without judicial review and formal order issued by an Article III Federal

Court, Notice of Tax Lien Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August

14, 2007, was sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address (Page #97 - Exhibit #20, pg., 2 of 5),

and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and

was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, following which the

Plaintiff requested the Albany County Clerk to provide copy of the Document Search for

the Document Details including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with

the Amount being “$96,305.16”, and (as shown on Page #99 - Exhibit #20, pg., 4 of 5;

Page #102 - Exhibit #21, pg., 2 of 2) the Notice of Federal Tax Lien does not even have a

valid signature because the person “R. A. Mitchell” signed for the Revenue Officer Holly

Nolan. Thereafter, Plaintiff also went online to the New York State Secretary of State's

Website, to UCC information on Filing Data Reports, and the State Secretary of State's

UCC document services reports “No Debtors found” (Exhibit 27) and further validation of

the IRS’ fraud is established by documentation offered through the Clerk’s record and by

the letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District Court, Northern

District of New York, documenting that there is no record for proceedings filed let alone

a judgment signed by a Federal Judge involving a Federal Tax Lien against the Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene. In addition, in a letter dated February 11, 2008, Plaintiff has also

submitted an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,

Philadelphia, PA 19106, (Exhibit28) and the details derived from the decoded file will be

presented to this Honorable Court and Plaintiffs will motion to amend this complaint so

as to add additional Causes of Actions when that information is available.

63
THE IRS SUMMONSES TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER IS IN DEFIANCE OF
RECENT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CASE

74. The Court’s attention is invited to the decision by the United States Court of Appeal

for the Second Circuit in Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005), in which

the Second Circuit held that if the IRS felt it was entitled to Summons the individual’s

records the IRS would have to initiate a lawsuit in federal district where, in the interest of

due process, the individual would be able to assert his or her constitutional defenses, and

there would be a full adversarial proceeding and hearing, and a court order would be

required before the individual would have to turn over his private and personal

information to the IRS. Yet, instead of honoring the spirit and intent of the Second

Circuit rulings that spoke clearly and unrestrained regarding the citizen’s Right to Due

Process protections against IRS administrative actions, IRS Official Holly Nolan

formally summoned Plaintiff’s Employer for information. The Summonses are dated

September 5, 2007.

75. Now, Plaintiffs have only recently become aware that the Second Circuit has

amended the wording of its earlier findings with reference to the fact that Congress has

given the IRS broad directions under 26 U.S.C. 7601 to investigate " all persons therein

who may be liable to pay any internal revenue tax, and all persons owning or having the

care and management of any objects with respect to which any tax is imposed” as well as

the authority to seek “penalties applicable to forcible obstruction or hindrance of

Treasury officers or employees in the performance of their duties”, and in this context,

64
the Plaintiffs can understand that the simple issuance of an IRS summons itself does not

in-and-of itself create an Article III controversy for those who may in fact be liable under

the income tax laws, but consideration must also be given to the fact that the IRS has

historically refused to provide Plaintiffs with any reference of law requiring them to file

and/or assume a liability in these matters and in checking both, the Parallel Table of

Authorities and Rules and the Cornell University Law School resources it is shown that

there are no regulations, either legislative or substantive or even interpretive regarding 26

U.S.C. § 7801, 26 U.S.C. § 7802, 26 U.S.C § 7803 nor 26 U.S.C. § 7804, as well as the

fact that the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition

government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United

States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and IRS Officials have

admitted to in public form (i.e., as outlined in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this

complaint), that “enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … and the new agreement with

the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition”, and that, decisions

to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is

considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d

1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972);

United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald,

553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), such that Plaintiffs have good reason to

believe that the federal courts would have had jurisdiction over motions to quash IRS

summonses even in the absence of some effort by the IRS to seek court enforcement of

the summons.

65
76. Yet, Plaintiffs were denied their Right of due process, because the Summonses in

question were never sent to Plaintiffs PO Box to allow Plaintiffs the ability to respond

by petitioning the District Court in a timely manner,40 and that Plaintiffs were only

notified of the existence of Summonses, dated September 5, 2007, by their Employer,

who thereupon provided Plaintiffs with their only copies of the same on September 24,

2007. At that time, Plaintiffs informed their employer that the Summonses were yet

another act of defiance employed by the IRS to quash the Plaintiff’s exercising of their

First Amendment Right to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances involving

Constitutional Torts.

77. Plaintiffs thereupon provided their Employer with the quote from the Second Circuit

indicated on page 10 in Schulz, that whether in defense against a “two-party” or a “three-

party” summons, in the interest of Due Process the individual is entitled to a full

adversarial proceeding and judicial hearing before being put in jeopardy of penalty by

having his private and personal property turned over to the Government without his

consent, as would be the case if the Employer complied with the Summonses. And, this

was followed by Plaintiffs further informing their Employer that just because they have

chosen to exercise their Constitutional Rights in these matters, they also believed that it

was a personal choice and their decision to exercise their First Amendment Right to

Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional Torts which should not be

40
The following is language from 26 U.S.C. 7609 (b)(2):
(2) Proceeding to quash.
(A) In general. Notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, any person who is entitled to notice of a
summons under subsection (a) shall have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons not later
than the 20th day after the day such notice is given in the manner provided in subsection (a)(2). In any
such proceeding, the Secretary may seek to compel compliance with the summons. (emphasis added).

66
in anyway whatsoever a burden to others, such that Plaintiffs informed their employer

that Plaintiffs did not have the ability to respond to the Summonses by petitioning the

District Court in a timely manner, and that if they (Plaintiffs’ Employer) did not comply

the IRS would in all probability simply retaliate against them as well and that any cost of

said compliance should be billed to Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs would be filing a suit at a

later date in the event of other real damages. At that time, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene

wrote her September 28, 2007 letter to the IRS, and provided the employer with a copy of

the same.

78. To repeat, the Summonses in question were never sent to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs

were only notified of its existence by their Employer, who thereupon provided Plaintiffs

with their only copy. Plaintiffs responded to the IRS Summonses provided to them by

their Employer by informing their Employer that they had a Right to Petition the

Government for Redress of Grievances and that the summonses were a deliberate

infringement of that Right – i.e., impermissible retaliation – and further informed their

Employer of the United States Court of Appeals Case in which the Second Circuit ruled

that before an individual could be put in jeopardy of penalty by having his [or her] private

and personal property turned over to the Government without his [or her]consent, [S]he

was entitled, by Due Process, to assert his [or her] defenses in an adversarial judicial

proceeding and hearing.41

41
Quoting Schulz:
“United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 719, 63 L. Ed. 2d 141, 100 S. Ct. 874 (1980) (‘The summoned party
is entitled to challenge the issuance of the summons in an adversary proceeding in federal court prior to
enforcement, and may assert appropriate defenses.’ (emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d
297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005).

67
IRS NOTICE OF LEVYS WERE ISSUED TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER AND
PLAINTIFFS BANKS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER

79. Instead of bringing Plaintiffs into a Federal District Court or even providing the

Plaintiffs with copy in a timely manner where they could assert their defenses and where

they would have a public, adversarial hearing and receive the full protection of the Court,

the IRS served summonses on the Plaintiffs Employer, and shortly thereafter, on

November 5, 2007, Plaintiffs were informed that both their Joint Account and Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene’s Personal Account were inactive because IRS Notice of Levies had

been served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in

Ogden, UT. Plaintiffs were in California at the time, and did not arrive in Albany NY

until late on November 9, 2007.

80. On November 10, 2007, Plaintiffs got the mail from their PO Box, which included

copies of IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 29, 2007, that had been

“Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 525, 27 L. Ed. 2d 580, 91 S. Ct. 534 (1971) (‘Thus the [IRS]
summons is administratively issued but its enforcement is only by federal court authority in an adversary
proceeding affording the opportunity for challenge and complete protection to the witness.’ (internal
quotations marks omitted, emphasis added))” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit,
2005).
“Reisman advances this view. 375 U.S. at 450 (‘We remit the parties to the comprehensive procedure of
the Code, which provides full opportunity for judicial review before any coercive sanctions may be
imposed."); see also Bisceglia, 420 U.S. at 151 ("Congress has provided protection from arbitrary or
capricious action by placing the federal courts between the Government and the person summoned [by the
IRS].’). Schulz I provided our first opportunity to conform the law of this Circuit to that view.” Schulz II
(Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 302 (2d Circuit, 2005).
“The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus:
any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders
except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties ‘so heavy
as to prohibit resort to that remedy,’ Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333, 64 L. Ed. 596,
40 S. Ct. 338 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
This is so even if ‘in the proceedings for contempt the validity of the original order may be assailed.’ Id. at
335; see also Reisman, 375 U.S. at 446; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 147-48, 52 L. Ed. 714, 28 S. Ct.
441 (1908).” Schulz II (Schulz v IRS, 413 F. 3d 297, 303 (2d Circuit, 2005).

68
served on both of the Plaintiffs’ Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in

Ogden, UT from that bank (Exhibits 29 & 30), as well as copies mailed from the IRS (See

Page #128 - Exhibit 31, pg. 1 of 3; Page #131 - Exhibit 32, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the

Plaintiffs’ mailing address (Exhibits 31 & 32). These documents do not have a valid

signature (See Page #123 - Exhibit 29, pg. 2 of 3; Page #126 - Exhibit 30, pg. 2 of 3;

Page #129 - Exhibit 31, pg. 2 of 3; Page #132 - Exhibit 32, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as

the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See

Page #124 - Exhibit 29, pg. 3 of 3; Page #127 - Exhibit 30, pg. 3 of 3; Page #130 -

Exhibit 31, pg. 3 of 3; Page #133 - Exhibit 32, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26

U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a

court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations

Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately

issued the Notice of Levys exposing the Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT to

possible law suits. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C.

6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court

order:

(c) Special rule for banks

Any bank (as defined in section 408 (n)) shall surrender (subject to an
attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including
interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

81. In addition, two other IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levys, Dated October 29,

2007, mailed from the IRS (See Page #134 - Exhibit 33, pg. 1 of 3) to both of the

Plaintiffs’ mailing address. The Notice of Levys, Dated October 29, 2007, indicated

service would also be made upon Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Citizens Bank account

69
(Exhibit 33), as well as an IRS Notice of Levy being served in the name of Plaintiff

William M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank42 (Exhibit 34).

82. The Citizens Bank that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene does business with is located at

1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205, yet IRS Notice of Levies were addressed to

Citizens Bank at 20 Blackstone Valley Place, Lincoln, RI 02865-1145. It is, therefore,

important to note that the branch of the Citizens Bank in question that the Plaintiff does

business with is also located in the Second Circuit, indicating the degree of defiance IRS

has exposed in its pursuit of quashing the Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment

Right to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances.

83. In a letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff Karen M. Greene

that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens Bank, N.A. with

funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of 2-8-2008 (See

Page #139 - Exhibit 35, pg. 1 of 3). The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy

of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 (Exhibit 35), Again,

these documents do not have a valid signature (See Page #135 - Exhibit 33, pg. 2 of 3;

Page #137 - Exhibit 34, pg. 1 of 2; Page #140 - Exhibit 35, pg. 2 of 3), Section 6331(a) as

the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is nonexistent or absent (See

Page #136 - Exhibit 33, pg. 3 of 3; Page #138 - Exhibit 34, pg. 2 of 2; Page #141 -

Exhibit 35, pg. 3 of 3), and of course, because 26 U.S.C. 6332(c) expressly states that

Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court order, Plaintiffs maintain that the

42
The Plaintiff William M. Greene does not have a Bank account at Citizens Bank but Plaintiffs’ son
William M. Greene, Jr. does have a savings account at the same branch of Citizens Bank that Plaintiff
Karen M. Greene does business, which is located at 1440 Central Ave., Albany NY 12205.

70
IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have

knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued the Notice of Levy to RBS

Citizens Bank, N.A. exposing this bank to possible law suits.

84. Moreover, copies of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008,

were also issued, with one being mailed (See Page #142 - Exhibit 36, pg. 1 of 3) to the
36
Plaintiff Karen M. Greene (Exhibit ) and the other being served upon the Plaintiffs’

Employer, and along with the copy of Notice of Levy to Plaintiffs’ Employer (Exhibit 37),

Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan, attached a letter notifying the employer that “This will

attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can not

issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees”.

(See Page #145 - Exhibit 37, pg. 1 of 7)

85. Apart from the fact that most of these documents issued as IRS Form 668-A(ICS) -

Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, do not have a valid signature (See Page #143 -

Exhibit 36, pg. 2 of 3; Page #148 - Exhibit 37, pg. 4 of 7; Page #150 - Exhibit 37, pg. 6 of

7) and Section 6331(a) as the statement of limited authority that provides for the levy is

nonexistent or absent all of these documents (See Page #144 - Exhibit 36, pg. 3 of 3;

Page #147 - Exhibit 37, pg. 3 of 7; Page #149 - Exhibit 37, pg. 5 of 7), Plaintiffs believe

that this document itself is founded in fraud wherein-by the IRS filed a Notice of Liens

with the County Clerks Office without a Federal Court Order (Exhibits 15 & 21), and given

that Revenue Officer, Holly L. Nolan attached her letter notifying the employer that they

can not issue Karen Greene an advance (Page #145 - Exhibit 37, pg. 1 of 7), this also

71
constitutes an interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, given that

as truck drivers Plaintiffs’ contract calls for the employer to advance us the expense

moneys to pay for fuel and tolls to complete the contracted job, and without these

contracted funds from our employer, Plaintiffs can not complete contracted job

assignments and the only reason that Plaintiffs’ were able to continue working was that

their Employer sought legal consultation before levying Plaintiffs’ payroll account
38
(Exhibit ) in the amount of $1,475.00 (See Page #152 - Exhibit 38, pg. 1 of 1)

86. Following interference with the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Contract, Plaintiffs

feared that they might be out of work altogether very soon, unless their employer was

willing to put up with all of this, as Plaintiffs awaited a final decision in the first

impression case of We the People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) , but

as it happened Plaintiffs employer notified them by email that they just received another

form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008 (Exhibit 39) and Plaintiffs

responded (Exhibit 40) to the employers’ email by stating that Form 668-W is a "Notice of

Levy" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at all

unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court stamp,

and that a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B (Exhibit 41) and even then, a

Levy is ONLY lawful if it is effected by Form 668-B, which subjects the individual to

Section 6331(a) (See Page #160 - Exhibit 41, pg. 2 of 2) and even that only pertains to

those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers,

employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their

"employer", as well as to explain that if either of the Plaintiffs were uneducated enough

72
(not a put down because most lawyers don’t even understand) to in fact sign away our

Due Process Rights by filling out Form 668-W and signing parts #4 and #5, then and only

then would this form carry any weight as a lawful document as they could then file a

signed copy with the District Court, even though we are not officers or employees of a

federal possessions corporation, elected federal government officials, nor employees of

the federal government, and the employer has since provided the Plaintiffs with pages of

IRS Form 668-W(ICS) he had originally omitted (Exhibit 42), but the overall effect of all

of this is not simply that the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and

Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately issued Notice

of Levies forms, which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such purposes,

and in this instance seized property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account

in the dollar amount of $352.30 (See Page #169 - Exhibit 42, pg. 9 of 9), but in the

process Plaintiffs are out of work unless or until this Honorable Court grants Injunctive

Relief.

87. The effect of the Plaintiffs Banks and Employer complying with the IRS Notice of

Levies without a court order is the same as if the IRS used force against Plaintiffs

directly, for by engaging in acts of malicious intent seeking to obstruct justice the IRS has

effectively denied Plaintiffs their Due Process Rights protected under our Constitution,

i.e., the Right to face an accuser and assert defenses in a full adversarial judicial

proceeding and hearing before suffering injury, and thereby without their consent or even

a judicial hearing Plaintiffs have been penalized by having their private and personal

finances seized by the Government Contractor (the IRS), with the intent (and effect) of

73
infringing on their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, when

in reality, Plaintiffs maintain that the IRC of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large,

and codified as title 26 of the United States Code clearly indicates that the IRC itself was

designed to preserved those same Due Process Rights:

[SEC. 7804. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLANS --

[(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. --Nothing
in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy,
including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been
erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have
been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or
in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the
purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes,
rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal
officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to
refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave
rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under
existing law.]43

88. Finally, because “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the

land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law” (Marbury v.

Madison, 5 US 137), Plaintiffs maintain that the mandate for Due Process protections

with respect to IRS administrative acts, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with

proper jurisdiction, explicitly require an Article III judicial hearing before Plaintiffs can

lawfully be injured by such an administrative action, is clearly antecedent to imposition

of administratively-issued liens and levys, except where licensing agreements obligate

assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative

seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life,

43
See [SEC. 7804. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLANS -- [(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES at
(http://www.irstaxattorney.com/legislation/RRA_1998_House_ways_report_p6.html)

74
liberty or property, which, was the original intent of IRC which served in preserving the

dependent clause “including trial by jury.”

A RETALIATORY OR RETRIBUTION TAX IMPOSED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS

EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THEIR MONEYS PENDING A
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS, ITSELF, ILLEGAL AND SHOULD NOT BE
ENFORCED

89. In order for the Government Contractor to justify its failure to respond to Plaintiffs

for Petitioning the Government for Redress of Constitutionally directed Grievances, the

IRS, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint)

announced in public form that “…enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. … show other

ways that government is answering the petition” and then in the related § 6700 Suit (Case

No. 1:07-cv-0352) the IRS had the audacity to lie to the US Department of Justice and

fabricate the estimated cost to the U.S. Treasury, by listing damages attributable to filing

substitutes for the 2991 unfiled returns equaling $4,806,537 for which they clearly would

have had to have some idea of the names to which the Blue Folder had been distributed.

Yet, during the Oral Arguments at U.S. Court of Appeals presented in Manhattan the

Government’s Counsel admitted that the IRS fabricated damages (as indicated in

paragraph #4 of this complaint) and this statement alone by the Government’s Counsel is

evidence of the extent to which the IRS, as a Government Contractor, has gone to impose

a retaliatory or retribution tax against Plaintiffs as active members of their participating

organization, while attempting to involve the US Department of Justice in their crimes

through representation by Government’s Counsel, and, of course, because of the honesty

of Government’s Counsel in this instance, a serious federal offense has been correctly

75
identified and admitted to in terms of the major fraud upon the American People which

Plaintiffs believe is cognizable in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and the United States in terms

of 18 U.S.C. § 1031.

90. In short, the IRS served third party summonses without a court order on the employer

through which both Plaintiffs work and through which Plaintiff Karen M. Greene is

contracted. Plaintiffs Banks and Plaintiffs Employer have receive from the IRS Forms

668-A(ICS), the "Notice of Levy" that were sent to Plaintiffs Banks and Employer, which

are third parties, for the purpose of collecting taxes that are allegedly owed, but the fact

remains the Government’s Contractor has historically admitted in public form, not once

but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), that IRS

administrative actions are retaliatory and imposed against Plaintiffs and other members of

WTP Organization as a response to petitions for the sole purpose of quashing their First

Amendment Right, which is, itself, illegal and unconstitutional and should not be

enforceable, but Plaintiffs also contend that the IRS’s enforcement actions are executed

“… afoul of the due process requirements …" (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv).

91. In addition, along with the last IRS Form 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January

3, 2008, served upon the Plaintiffs’ Employer, the IRS attached a letter notifying the

employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of

this levy you can not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be

deducted are State fees.” And finally, Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the

employer) received another form, IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008, which

76
has served to put the Plaintiffs out of work all together, unless or until this Honorable

Court provides Injunctive Relief.

92. In part, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief is

supported by the fact that Title 26 itself is the body of Regulations that contains reference

to the legal authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to administer provisions pertaining

to the collection of income taxes. In this context, until Plaintiffs reviewed the

information collected and presented for public review by WTP Foundation our

appreciation of American history and events like that of President Taft’s June 16, 1909

letter to Congress to propose an income tax amendment for the purpose of overturning

the Pollock Decision would have been difficult at best:

Senate Doc. No. 98 at 2, 61st Congress, 1st sess. (1909), is as follows:

"That decision of the Supreme Court [Pollock] in the income-tax cases deprived
the National Government of a power… It is undoubtedly a power the National
Government ought to have… I therefore recommend to Congress that both
Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution
conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government
without apportionment among the States in proportion to population." Senate
Doc. No. 98 at 2, 61st Congress, 1st sess. (1909). (emphasis added)

93. In other words, it seems rather apparent that the 16th Amendment was enacted to tax

particular types of “income” as an excise tax on privileged activities, not everyone "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).

77
94. However, Plaintiffs contend that they are being retaliated against for even asking

questions about all of this in terms of their First Amendment Right to Petition for a

Redress of Grievances and their belief that this Honorable Court should provide

Injunctive Relief is supported by other facts that are explained in the on-line article by

Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax”44 which also explains that

the legal authority for the use of IRS Form 668-W, "Notice of Levy", is extremely limited

and depends upon the statutory provisions for "levying" upon the wages, accrued salary,

or other property of an individual, such that Plaintiffs contend that IRS administrative

actions taken in their effort to impose their retaliatory or retribution tax against

Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment Right are occurring where the IRS has not

even followed the statutory provisions in connection with their actions.

95. For example, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. explains that when the

IRS Form 668-W, the "Notice of Levy" was designed, the cite of authority that would

reveal its limited application was conveniently omitted - a cite that must, by law,

accompany the notice. The individual who actually receives the "Notice of Levy" is, of

course, a third party who then acts upon the Notice of Levy to send moneys to the IRS

merely on the "presumption" that if it was sent from the IRS then the authority must be

valid. Yet, the authority to levy is restricted to and contained within Section 6331(a) of

the IRC:

44
See On-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. entitled “Tax Law – Basics of Tax”
(http://www.pappastax.com/taxbasics.php?cat=3). Also same information is available at
(http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/IRSLiensAndLevies.htm), (http://www.usa-the-
republic.com/revenue/levy.html),
(http://www.save-a-patriot.org/articles/levy.html),
(http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/emailarticle.html?ID=26559), and many more;

78
 IRC 6331 - Levy and distraint.
(a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or
refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful
for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to
cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property
(except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person
or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax.
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer,
employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia,
or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the
District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined
in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). If the
Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice
and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary
and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be
lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.
[Emphasis Added]

96. The on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. further explains that Section 6331 is

the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of wages and salaries etc.,

specifically referred to as the “employment tax” on income under Subtitle C, and the

"limitation" of that authority should be rather obvious since it pertains ONLY to certain

officers, employees, and elected officials of the government and of course, their

employer, the government, but it is important to emphasize that this section is also

implemented by regulations pertaining to “excise taxes” under Subtitle E of the IRC, and

making enforceable, levies on the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms under 27

CFR Part 70. Therefore, assuming that all other legal requirements are met (e.g., notice

and demand, court order, lien, etc.), a levy may be made only on property of those

persons who are described in IRC Subtitle E, and on the property of the government

employees described in 26 U.S.C. 6331(a). If any similar provisions exist for anyone or

anything else to provide connection with the income tax in Subtitle A, Plaintiffs are

79
simply unaware of it, and given that Plaintiff William M. Greene has personally and

repeatedly requested in all of his letters to the IRS that if the IRS provides the Plaintiff

with the law requiring him to file and/or assume a liability in these matters he would do

so, and to date the IRS has failed to respond accordingly, Plaintiff’s belief that no similar

provisions exist for anyone or anything else appears justifiably and rationally correct.

97. Our Servant Government, and Government Contractors which include IRS Officials

and Agents, have a legal obligation to not exercise excesses of their authority, and

retaliation against Petitioners is an excess of their authority, and specifically with respect

to those IRS Agents who are errantly exercising a "presumed" authority, Plaintiffs

believe that these same IRS Agents are supposed to be acting in accordance with the

provisions that hold them responsible for its administration.

98. Specifically, the on-line article by Pappas & Associates, P.A. also explains that these

provisions deal with what are called "delegation orders" because no agent may administer

a provision of the IRC without a proper order delegating such authority, and the authority

to "administer" the provisions of Section 6331, regardless of its applicability, is further

restricted by national and local "delegation orders" designed to ensure compliance with

the limited application of the IRC, indicating that it is the Secretary who is responsible

for administering the provisions for the levy or delegating the authority if and when

appropriate.

80
99. However, given that Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that the IRS provide

reference to the authority delegated to the preparer by the Secretary to prepare the

deficiency and the legislative regulation with it’s geographical and personam jurisdiction

that requires him to properly respond, and the IRS has failed to comply with Plaintiffs

requests, Plaintiffs must conclude such "delegation orders" are either absent or invalid,

and that the IRS at all times must use the enforcement authority in good-faith pursuit of

the authorized purposes of Code (U.S. v. La Salle N.B., 437 U.S. 298 (1978)), and IRS

Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of Levy(s)" that are sent to third

parties such as banks, employers, and other financial institutions to confiscate property

for the purpose of collecting taxes allegedly owed, however the "nonjudicial" collection

authority is wholly dependent upon a statute (Section 6321) which provides for a lien to

automatically arise, and on the back of the 668-W Notice of Levy form, the reference to

Section 6331(a) which is the actual authority for a levy is omitted, such that the authority

listed includes Section 6331(b) through Section 6331(e) and those are the Sections which

the third parties erroneously rely on and refer to, but then again, because the authority for

the levy pertains only to government agencies within the territories (which is what it

actually says), then it should certainly come as no surprise that "delegation orders"

pertaining to service centers and district offices within the 50 states cannot authorize such

a levy, but again, the actual authority for a levy is, in part:

26 U.S.C. 6331- Levy and distraint.

(a) Authority of Secretary. If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or
refuses to pay … Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any
officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District
of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the
District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined
in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official). …

81
 [Emphasis Added]

100. As such, Plaintiffs belief that this Honorable Court should provide Injunctive Relief

is supported by the fact that the Internal Revenue Manual is written to protect people

from these misapplications of code to justify the IRS’ retaliation, and Section 6331

appears to be the only authority in the entire IRC that provides for the levy of property

such as wages, salaries, etc., and given that the limitation of that authority shown at

Section 6331(a) appears nonexistent or absent, a sufficient employer-employee

relationship which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a) is also absent, given that it

only pertains to those persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and

certain officers, employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the

government as their "employer."

101. In short, the IRS has been exercising its administrative procedures (enforcement)

against Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Right to Petition for a Redress

of Grievances, a constitutionally-assured right, and in doing so has also violated

Plaintiffs’ due process rights included in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh

Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and corresponding

provisions in constitutions of the several States. After utterly refusing to respond to the

Petitions, let alone provide Redress, IRS officials publically announced their intention

and method of retaliating under the color of federal and state assessment and collection

proceedings, and when Plaintiffs look into the subject of legal authority being used

against them, Plaintiffs find that it can not be interpreted in any other way than to say that

the IRS have to knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed acts in

82
violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and thereby

perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US Department of

Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation. Such actions by the government

contractor (the IRS) are reprehensible and unconstitutional and should be enjoined.

102. IRS administrative procedures including Dummy Returns and other “enforcement”

actions, including Summonses, order-less Levies and Liens, and by sending the Plaintiffs

their own personal copy of the § 6700 suit against the WTP Foundation, of which

Plaintiffs are a part, the IRS is retaliating against Plaintiffs by attempting to disqualify

them from taking a public position on matters in which they are financially interested,

depriving Plaintiffs of their Right to Petition, and Freely Associate with other group

members and to speak freely in the very instance in which those Rights are of the most

importance to Plaintiffs. See Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941).

103. The IRS certainly had no moral or legal authority to falsify damages for the

purposes of enlisting the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney(s) to deploy the vast

resources of the United States against WTP Organization which Plaintiffs are members,

and the IRS’ actions, clearly, could have served no other purpose than to harass and

intimidate us as Petitioners who are clearly exercising and seeking the protections

guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it is not just a

matter of the duty of the Court to interfere with Revenue collection proceedings under 26

U.S.C. § 7421 if such proceedings are exercised in excess of statutory authority granted

to the IRS and/or in violation of constitutional rights (See Yannicelli v Nash (1972, DC

83
NJ) 354 F Supp 143, 72-2 USTC P 9763, 31 AFTR 2d 315), but research needs to

address the question of how it is that, given the IRS itself, being the successor of the

Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal

Revenue, was not created by Congress, as required by Article I § 8, clause 18 of the

Constitution of the United States, how can any court believe and/or hold that the IRS has

any authority whatsoever to legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United

States in States of the Union (See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572,

1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100

through the 1997 edition; see also, United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879);

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1886)) against People who

are duly signed onto and therefore exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for

a Redress of Grievance?

104. The ability of the IRS as a Government Contractor to insult people, and lie about

damages in the effort to enlist Government Counsel to redefine their acts of retaliation so

as to bring actions into the Federal Courts to fine and otherwise control people or even

imprison them, is no substitute for the ability to actually help people "understand" their

tax responsibilities, as the IRS' own Mission Statement dictates. In a country based upon

the rule of law, "enforcement actions" are an unacceptable response to the asking of

questions by honest people who peaceably Petition the Government for Redress of

alleged Grievances, particularly those dealing with constitutional torts.

84
PLAINTIFFS WILL ALSO DRAW UPON OTHER EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

105. In this case, Plaintiffs also draw upon the research by a group of people within the

State of Oregon who have created the Evidence Book45 as a summary of their actions to

put their county officials on notice and is distributed on-line for others to use within their

respective counties and states, to similarly put their federal, state and county officials on

notice of the fraud and Due Process violations which normally occur in the context of

Counterfeiting Securities, fraud, extortion, racketeering, official misconduct, falsifying

documents and abuse of seal, because of the requirement of Counties to record Notices of

Federal Liens into a system of records reserved for liens, as though they were liens, such

that, State and County employees and officials are perpetrating a multitude of felony

crimes in the context of 18 §§ 3, 4, 513, 872, 873, 1017, 1020, 2381, 2384, and 42 U.S.C

§ 408(a)(8) for the benefit of the IRS, which fails to even follow the statutory provisions

in connection with their actions, and this wealth of information, including the “Report

concerning Liability of US Citizens in regard to Federal Income Taxes”46 are also offered

in the context of this case to further explain that, simply changing the index from Lien, to

Notice of Lien is insufficient to file them as Notice of Liens, because a Notice of Lien

index is still a fraud when a signature cannot be verified, and given that a verified
45
See the “Evidence Book” with face of the book reading, “ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen
and Property Owners to correct the improper recording of : INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE –mere-
“NOTICES” OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN AS ACTUAL “LIENS” -- This “Counterfeits a SECURITY”
AND ESTABLISHES FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY A POTENTIAL CLASS-ACTION LIABILITY FOR
“DAMAGES” FROM THE “VICTIMS” OF THIS I.R.S. SCAM IN DOUGLAS COUNTY AS WELL AS
ALL OTHER OREGON COUNTIES -- Attention: OREGON STATE AUDITOR – Loma-Marie: Family
of Wharton, ad hoc Steering Committee Chairman [and] Rae Copitka: Family of Copitka, Minister and ad
hoc Steering Committee Co-Chair. (http://theliberators11.org/gpage.html);
46
See “Report Concerning Liability of U.S. Citizens in Regard to Federal Income Taxes,
(http://theliberators11.org/downloads/03%20revised%2027%20page%20report%20on%20liability.doc);

85
signature is required on ALL instruments evidencing a debt, the instruments constitute

“fraudulent securities” in that these instruments are:

(a) Counterfeited to an evidence of debt;

(b) They are numbered;
(c) They are recorded;
(d) They are used in commerce to levy.

106. Along with the Evidence Book, the ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and

Property Owners have recently developed a proposed “Ordinance [that] can be applied to

any State in the Union, presented to county commissioners/supervisors for adoption to

Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county

in the Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas,

Oregon, and the Ordinance is complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for

findings of facts and conclusions of law,47 should the court choose to also investigate the

IRS in terms of securities fraud. As such, Plaintiffs in this case are offering the weight of

evidence presented in the “Evidence Book” which is being distributed on-line for other

concerned people to use within their respective counties and states, and based upon the

information in the Evidence Book, county and state officials are now becoming aware

that by accepting these Notices without verified signatures the recorder converts a non-

negotiable instrument/non-“spendable” paper into a negotiable/ “spendable” ledger entry,

and therefore has, without full disclosure, counterfeited a currency for the United States.

47
See copy of ad hoc Steering Committee of Businessmen and Property Owners proposed “Ordinance
[that] can be applied to any State in the Union, presented to county commissioners/supervisors for adoption
to Stop the Securities Fraud in the Recorder of Conveyance against property for any county in the
Federation” to correct the improper recording of liens in the County of Douglas, Oregon. The Ordinance is
complete with Constitutional Provisions and a demand for findings of facts and conclusions of law, should
the court choose to invalidate. (http://theliberators11.org/downloads/Ordinance%20EW-2-
%20%2001.03.08.wpd)

86
FURTHER EXPRESSION OF EVIDENCE BOOK AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE
MAY ULTIMATELY LEAD TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS LIKE THE IRS
BEING RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

107. Plaintiffs believe that a further expression of the Evidence Book and proposed

Ordinance, which are being distributed on-line for other concerned people to use within

their respective counties and states, is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment

Rights, but would point out to the Court that by communicating information, expressing

facts and opinions, reciting grievances, protesting abuses and praying for answers to

specific questions, Plaintiffs have been part of WTP Organization to give expression

essential to the end that our Servant Government, as well as Government Contractors

such as the IRS, may ultimately be responsive and accountable to the Constitution and to

the sovereignty of the People and these facts satisfy the Founders intent for the provision

of our First Amendment Right to Petition, and in this context much of the information

presented in the Evidence Book has also been asked in terms of the first Petition

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

its’ Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances resulting

from the IRS's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned

tax on labor):

"The original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be
exercised only in extraordinary exigencies, and down to August 15, 1894, this
expectation has been realized" (See, the United States Supreme Court. 1895,
Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and
Trust Co., 157, U.S. 429, 574 (1895), declaring income tax unconstitutional.
Harold M. Groves, University of Wisconsin, Financing Government - Revised
Edition, New York: Henry Holt and Co. Inc., 1939, 1945, p. 156).

87
108. Apart from their First Amendment Right to Petition, Plaintiffs contend that it is also

our Right in terms of our First Amendment Right to a Redress of Grievances to expect

real changes or corrections of grievances involving constitutional torts, and it is in these

terms by which Plaintiffs are entitled to and have therefore come before this Honorable

Court seeking to be assured and affirmed of the full force of their Rights, that is, by

lawful and peaceful means (See McDonald v Smith (1985) 472 US 479; New York Times

Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 at 266, 269.), and while the Petitions for Redress of

Grievances make no claim that the United States Government lacks authority to tax,

merely asking the government and its contractor (the IRS) for answers to specific

questions regarding the tax, war, money and debt and “privacy” clauses of the

Constitution, Plaintiffs argue that under the circumstances of this case, the enforcement

actions being taken against them by the Government’s Contractor amount to a very

ominous and frightful retaliation in which the harm being done is both immediate and

irreparable, which is impermissible and prohibited by the original meaning and spirit of

the Petition and Assembly, Speech, Press and due process Clauses of the Constitution.

109. The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that Right

against abridgment even by Congress, and the Right to Petition is among the most

precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and as an essential element of

self-government that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of

liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions, and in this

case, Plaintiffs have been signed on to all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances

beginning with (a) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned

88
tax on labor, which was later followed by other petitions including (b) The war powers

clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution, (c) The money clauses of the

Constitution and the Federal Reserve, and (d) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution

and the USA Patriot Act, and specifically with regard to written communications to the

government, the First Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition

government officials for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United

States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), such that, decisions to

prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First Amendment is

considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v. Crowthers, 456 F.2d

1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 1972);

United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. McDonald,

553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and “The very idea of a government,

republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for

consultation in respect to public affairs and to Petition for a Redress of Grievances." See

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876). As such, in bringing this action,

Plaintiffs believe such further expression is not an abuse of any of their First Amendment

Rights, but an extension of their First Amendment Rights and any further intervention by

the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) against such exercise of these First Amendment

Rights represents a curtailment of Plaintiffs’ Rights and is forbidden, such that Plaintiffs

do not believe it to be improper for this Honorable Court to exercise its authority to

provide Injunctive Relief, until the underlying questions of Fraud and alleged violations

of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court are finally

determined:

89
 “Although the [enforcement] power provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
are to be liberally construed, a court must be careful to insure that its
construction will not result in a use of the power beyond that permitted by law.”
United States v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 488 F.2d 953 at 958 (5th Cir.
1974).

110. In short, while much hung in the balance as Plaintiffs, as members of WTP

Organization, have had to endure the injustice of the DC Court’s having dismissed

plaintiffs’ complaint (We The People v. United States, Case No. 04-cv-01211 (D.D.C.

Aug. 31, 2005)), the Appeal and decision (485 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2007), with rehearing

en banc denied (Aug. 3, 2007) and Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied as well (January

7, 2008), and now with SCOTUS, without comment, on February 25, 2008, also having

voted to not hear the final appeal in the Class Action suit, the Petition for Rehearing of

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, given the facts and circumstances of this

case, it would not be unreasonable to provide the Plaintiffs with some measure of

protection against an adversarial Government Contractor (the IRS) that continues to

openly demonstrate its intent to impede Justice and quash the fundamental Rights of

those of us who have signed onto all the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances to hold the

Government accountable to the Constitution, and therefore, based on Plaintiffs Rights as

Americans and Christians anything but an all-out-affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to

the losses of their Liberty would thus make it very difficult for government to proclaim

the traditional American view that the people are endowed with rights by their Creator,

and that the government exists to protect those rights:

"If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country
afford him a remedy? [5 U.S. 137, 163] The very essence of civil liberty
certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the

90
 laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to
afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful
form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases
in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.

'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that
where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or
action at law whenever that right is invaded.'

And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider
such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall
for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not
fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or
maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the
common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the
laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and
every injury its proper redress.'

The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a

government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high
appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal
right." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE OCCURRING WITH RESPECT

TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY & FREEDOM OF RELIGION (relating
to freedom from peonage and slavery)

111. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers

have infringed upon Plaintiffs’ Rights to Liberty and Religious Freedom48 to the extent

48
Given that the courts will always presume that a law is valid (US v. Harris (1883) 106 US 629 at 635;
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 10 US (6 Cranch) 87 at 128) and the burden of proving its unconstitutionality, or
the invalidity of its adoption, rests entirely on the litigant who is challenging the law (Brown v. Maryland
(1827) 25 US (12 Wheat.) 419 at 436; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Tompkins (1900)
176 US 167 at 173), Plaintiffs in this action are aware that by denying the validity of the laws developed
under the authority of the accursed Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Plaintiffs claim
constitutes an infringement upon their Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, in doing so, that means that
they must take on the entire burden of proving that the law is invalid, and have, therefore, gone to a great
length to set forth the historical significance herein of the use of the term Liberty as opposed to all forms of
slavery, including but not limited to the subject chattel slavery so as to explain the used of the term Slavery
in accordance with its original intent which included political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery,

91
that Plaintiffs can not help but recognize the fact that such actions actually constitute the

essence of slavery itself:

"But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of
constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of
the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just
and equal laws, … For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold
his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment
of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where
freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 (1886)

112. The Right to Liberty, itself is a subject that that may be divided in terms of Liberty

being natural, personal, civil and political, but the first two categories involving our

natural and personal Rights in relation to the subject of Liberty are at issue here as the

Inalienable Right of Liberty is first identified in the Declaration of Independence, and the

First Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, with

respect to our Inalienable Rights Liberty as it relates to the Right of Religious Freedom,

Plaintiffs also contend that peonage and slavery is a violation of our right to Religious

Freedom (e.g., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a

slave of men).

113. The subject of “slavery” is not only definable as “chattel slavery” which is

addressed in terms of the Thirteenth Amendment, but a number of other forms of

knowing that if Plaintiffs statement herein, as well as in the context of other paperwork which may be
submitted in this case, fails to make that proof then they must also take on all the penalties for disobeying
that law.

92
“slavery” which are not definable in terms of the Thirteenth Amendment, but rather in

terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax

slavery. Similarly, Plaintiffs believe that the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or

Bonded Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending through the labor

of our children and our children’s children is a subject that falls under the general subject

area of slavery.

114. Plaintiffs believe that because of the complexity of the subject matter itself,

volumes could be dedicated to the subject and still much would go unaddressed, and as

such, Plaintiffs seek to only set forth a minimal amount of detail related to their

understandings of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom, as they are related to

both the establishment of America as an independent nation and in terms of historical

foundation for their Religious Belief systems.

115. The historical significance of the subjects of Liberty and Religious Freedom are

meaningfully the basis of the war between the American colonies and Great Britain

(1775–1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States, and the

establishment of our Inalienable Right of Liberty considered in terms being free from tax

slavery, and the Inalienable Right of Religious Freedom involving that of Protestants’

(and then a particular flavor of protestantism at that) being free from Roman Catholicism,

and as such the Establishment Clause was certainly never meant to separate Christians

from the due respect of such belief systems by their servant government.

93
116. Plaintiffs maintain that our Inalienable Right of Liberty is comparable to our

modern day Government's apparent violations involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-

apportioned tax on labor), in that it is important to remember that Great Britain’s greatest

weapon was its funded national debt, in which British financiers, managing the joint

stock corporations of the Bank of England, the South Seas Company and the East India

Company, to loan the government money in wartime and thereby harness private savings

to military ends. Great Britain thus used postwar tax revenues to pay interest on what

became a perpetual debt, with the demand for revenues stimulating the growth of Great

Britain’s Treasury.49

117. In the early years before 1758 many of the colonists traded with the enemy as well

as refused to pay for British military operations rather than participate in this form of tax

slavery, and by 1765 outrage at British control became the overriding factor effecting

everything else as the British Parliament tried to extract money directly from the colonies

with the Stamp Act of 1765, and in response Americans began to insist that submission to

49
The Bibliography for paragraphs 134-145 of this complaint include: Alden, J. R., General Gage in
America: Being Principally a History of His Role in the American Revolution, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
State University, 1948. 313 p.; Bailyn, B., The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Harvard
University Press, 1967, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Prize in 1968; Billias, G.
A., George Washington's opponents: British generals and admirals in the American Revolution, New York,
Morrow, 1969; Brewer, J., The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688-1783, New
York: Knopf, 1989; Colley, L., Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837, Yale University Press, 1992;
Fleming, T.J., Liberty! The American Revolution, Viking Press, 1997; Jensen, M., The Founding of a
Nation: A History of the American Revolution 1763-1776, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2004
(original 1968); Maier, P., From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of
American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, W. W. Norton & Company, 1992; Shy, J.W., Toward
Lexington, Princeton University Press,1965; Thomas, P. D. G. British Politics and the Stamp Act Crisis:
The First Phase of the American Revolution, 1763–1767, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975; Thomas, P. D.
G., The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution 1767-1773, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987; Thomas, P. D. G., Tea Party to Independence: the Third Phase of the
American Revolution 1773- 1776, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991; Declaration of the Causes and Necessity
of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress; Establishment
Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001.

94
taxation without consent would enslave the colonists to whatever faction controlled

British Parliament, and as long as they remained unrepresented in the House of

Commons, Britain had no right to tax them.

118. According to British constitutional conceptions, taxation was a function of

sovereignty (the state's ultimate power to take property and life), which the Glorious

Revolution had vested in the king in Parliament, and British Parliament made its claims

explicit by asserting its sovereignty over the colonies in the Declaratory Act of 1766

which stated that Parliament's authority was the same in America as in Britain and

asserted Parliament's authority to make laws binding on the American colonies, therein-

by rejecting the American understanding of taxation in terms of slavery.

119. Nevertheless, in the face of virtual anarchy, the British Parliament repealed the

Stamp Act in March 1766, and by 1770 colonial arguments, at the urging of a new prime

minister, Lord North, were addressed by Parliament having opted to repeal all but one of

the forms of taxation (Townshend Duties), retaining only a single tax, on tea, to maintain

Parliament's claim to authority while conciliating the colonists.

120. Of course, most children exposed to anything about American history know, the

colonists saw the Tea Act of 1773 as an effort to force them to consume a taxed

commodity, such that in the context of the Boston Tea Party, three shiploads of tea were

destroyed on 16 December 1773 and no colonial port would allow the tea to be landed,

after which Lord North's ministry regarrisoned Boston and proposed a set of Coercive

95
Acts which were passed by the British Parliament in May and early June 1774; General

Thomas Gage was appointed governor in chief of Massachusetts, who closed the port of

Boston and suspend all representative government in the colony.

121. At the same time, the British Parliament also responded to problems in the west by

passing the Quebec Act in 1774, protecting the practice of the Roman Catholicism and

establishing French civil law in the province of Quebec, extending Quebec's boundaries

to give them province control over the territory and fur trade between the Ohio and

Mississippi rivers, and Protestants in the American colonies protested the Quebec Act as

an act empowering what Calvinists, and even some royalist historian Catholics, viewed as

a cryptopapist regime, which more than any other single factor brought arguments about

sovereignty and therefore inflamed by religious passion thousands of men were brought

to rally to the standard of writing, debating and risking their lives, such that the Quebec

Act was lumped with the Coercive Acts together to produce Legal and Constitutional

arguments as “Intolerable Acts” and resolved to stand fast.

122. The result was the most effective intercolonial resistance movement yet. On

September 5, 1774 representatives of the colonies convened as America’s First

Continental Congress50 to protest the Intolerable Acts and create a nonimportation

50
The Continental Congress was the first governing body or national government of the United States
which was comprised two successive bodies of representatives, with the First Continental Congress
meeting from September 5, 1774 to October 26, 1774 and the Second Continental Congress meeting from
May 10, 1775 to March 1, 1781, after which the membership of the Continental Congress was
automatically carried over to form the first legislative government of the United States, the Congress of the
Confederation or the United States in Congress Assembled, which ran from March 1, 1781 until the
government under the Constitution became operative on March 4, 1789. As such, the Capstone Right which
was expressed in an official Act passed unanimously by the First Continental Congress in 1774 is also the
same Capstone Right of the Congress that adopted the Declaration of Independence.

96
measure called the Continental Association. The association empowered local

committees of safety to enforce the agreement, creating a crude intercolonial union and

vesting police powers in radical hands. Agreeing to meet again on May 10, 1775 if the

British government had not yet repealed the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental

Congress adjourned on October 26, 1774. By then, Massachusetts patriots had created an

extralegal government called the Provincial Congress, taken control of the province's

arms, and organized self-defense forces.

123. In the ensuing crisis, General Thomas Gage was ordered to take military action to

forestall rebellion. Receiving these orders too late to capture the Provincial Congress,

General Gage tried to seize munitions stockpiled at Concord, triggering the Battles of

Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, and when the Provincial Congress reconvened

on May 10, 1775, as America’s Second Continental Congress, the real meaning of

Liberty is evidenced in terms of their opposition to the various forms of slavery they were

facing and was evidenced by the joint product of John Dickinson and Jefferson, the

“Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms:”

“…We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to

the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our
choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so
dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us
tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors,
and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot
endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that
wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary
bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if
necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully
acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his

97
 Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until
we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in
warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With
hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God
and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which
our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have
been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard,
with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our
liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live
slaves.” See Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July
6, 1775, an Official Document of the Second Continental Congress, written by
Thomas Jefferson and Colonel John Dickinson. [emphasis added]

124. Accordingly, America’s Second Continental Congress took control of the incipient

war on behalf of all thirteen colonies, adopting the New England forces as a Continental

army, appointing George Washington as commander in chief on June 15, 1775.

Following the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775), General Gage was recalled to

England and blamed for allowing the American colonies to rebel. Although it would be a

year before the colonies declared independence from Britain, the Revolutionary War had

begun.

125. In summation, the war between the American colonies and Great Britain (1775–

1783), leading to the formation of the independent United States had it basis in the

Inalienable Right of Liberty, which included being free from tax slavery, and the right of

Religious Freedom in terms of Protestants’ rights to be free from Roman Catholicism,

and as such, the Establishment Clause itself can historically be understood as a protection

against the same type of interference from a national government that the American

colonies had experienced in terms of Great Britain’s interference with the peoples’

existing religious backgrounds.

98
126. The Barbary Powers conflict also began (lasting thirty-two years) during the

American Revolution when Muslim terrorists from four different Islamic nations (Tunis,

Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) began making indiscriminate attacks against the property

and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France,

Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.), yet because the United States was protected by

the 1778 alliance with France which protected Americans at sea against all violence

during the Revolution, it was not until after the United States won its independence in the

treaty of 1783 that it had to protect its own commerce against dangers from the Barbary

Powers (pirates), which was accomplished in part through annual bribes of money settled

by numerous treaties,51 and because the enslavement of Christians by Muslims was such

a widespread problem in 1797 one of the formal treaties even went so far as to state that

the government of the United States of America is/was not founded as Christian nation:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded
on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred]
against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said
States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from

51
See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and
Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor
(Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded
September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity"
concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded
Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797;
see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate
April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United
States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification
advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799;
ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts,
Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William
M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.

99
 religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries." See Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth
Congress of the United States of America, Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797,
pp. 43-44.

127. Objections to officially stating in treaties or otherwise that the United States of

America is/was anything other than a Christian nation are easily documented, as even

President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) dissented to any provision

which repudiated Christianity as exhibiting nothing less than an act of cowardice. In fact,

while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

"The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the
standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage
to ours." See John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on
July 3, 1786.

128. Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than

a Christian nation, and when Congress renegotiated and ratified the "Treaty of Tripoli" in

1805 it was only after the unauthorized phrase "The United States is not, in any sense,

founded on the Christian religion" was repudiated and deleted,52 and although tribute

payments by the United States’ treaties did not end until 1815, it was Adams who

declared:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . .

the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and
now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and
immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of

52
See Federer, W.J. (Editor)(2000), America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations,
Amerisearch, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri; Beliles, M.A. & McDowell S.K. (1988), America's Providential
History, Providence Press, Charlottesville, VA.

100
 liberty are as unalterable as human nature." See John Adams, Works, Vol. X,
pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

129. In 1776, only a small number of Catholics lived in America and not that many Jews,

and America essentially remained a Protestant nation throughout the 1800s, and the

ideals of the Republic contemplated and penned by the 56 Founding Fathers, as set forth

in the Declaration of Independence, define our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness, which the history of the subject clearly shows that, when understood

in terms of the meaning of words used at the time, Christian faith is not irrelevant, not

based on secular 'ethics', and certainly did not seek to regulate, through taxation, the

churches and the people, and the Bill of Rights further serves to protect the individual

from interference from the federal government--providing rights given by our Creator

establishes that the rights expressed cannot be given or taken away from any American

by another individual or government action, as they are inherent rights given to each of us

by God. Ignoring history and law, and in all fairness probably out of ignorance of the

past, much of government, including the courts, have been working vigorously to turn

America into something other than a Christian nation.

130. Plaintiffs in this action must admit that until they reviewed the vast amount of

information collected and presented for public review by WTP Organization, their

appreciation of the history and events like the November 27, 1773 Boston Tea Party,

and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts Assembly was very limited at

best.

101
 Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England
1774—75
"Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We
are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor
from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands
us to stand fast in it."53

131. But it is exactly because of WTP Organization’s educational information that

Plaintiffs are aware that after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to

impose new legal duties on the People in the several states. The Creator and the common

law had imposed all legal duties on the People that were possible up to the time of

Independence. The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties

they had on July 4, 1776, under the common law. The Declaration of Independence

accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that

governments exist to secure the Rights endowed by the Creator.

132. Be that as it may, as Christians, Plaintiffs are not suggesting anything like the

alliance between Church and State which existed in England and which resulted in a

variety of common law outcomes made by judges as accomplices in the frauds of the

clergy, but would rather point to the fundamental arguments of the frauds of the clergy

that caused Thomas Jefferson to write what is now known as the "Jefferson Bible," or

"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" as it is formally titled, which was published

by an act of the United States Congress in 1904, in terms of their beliefs that the United

States of America was created as a Judeo-Christian Nation.

53
Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75,
(http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu:80/founders/documents/amendI_religions21.html).

102
133. Moreover, the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation

that included a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment wherein-by

religion was a matter to be left solely to the individual States. “The Ten Commandments

and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama,” William P.

Gray, Jr. Alabama Law Review Volume 49 Winter 1998 Number 2, offers further insight

into the Founders belief systems of the same and the historical foundations First

Amendment’s Establishment Clause:

[T]he Establishment Clause was enacted to prevent Congress from

interfering with the church-state relationships that existed in 1791.
Specifically, the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent Congress from
interfering with the established state churches and with state efforts to
accommodate religion. At the same time, the Clause disabled Congress from
interfering with the states that had already disestablished their churches. In other
words, the Establishment Clause was intended to embody a principle of
federalism. [. Id . at 1703 (emphasis added).
[….]
Indeed, state establishments of churches were common at the time of the
Revolution and the drafting and adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. [. See Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States , 427-
46 (1950).] There were at least five state establishments in 1787: the
Anglican Church was the state church of in Virginia until 1786; the "Christian
Protestant Religion" [. The "Christian Protestant Religion" was not a
denomination in the traditional sense but represented the various denominations
that fell under that broad heading. See id . at 51 (listing Protestant
denominations).] was the state religion in South Carolina until 1790; and the
Congregational Church was the state church in Connecticut until 1818, in New
Hampshire until 1819, and in Massachusetts until 1833. [. Stokes, supra note 46,
at 427-46.] Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its state church,
and did not do so until forty-four years after the Establishment Clause was
drafted by Congress. [. Stokes , supra note 46, at 418.]

No informed constitutional attorney or historian would argue that the First

Amendment in its original form applied to anything more than "laws" passed
by "Congress." Even Justice Hugo Black, a proponent of the "incorporation
theory," which would apply the First Amendment to the states, admitted that
"[p]rior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment
did not apply as a restraint against the states." [. Everson v. Board of Educ.,
330 U.S. 1, 13 (1947) (emphasis added).

103
134. Additionally, because Plaintiffs in this action assert that they are not subject to the

kind of redefinition of citizenship set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment which might

serve to diminish their enumerated and unremunerated Rights, particularly the accursed

Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment which constitutes an infringement upon the

Right of Liberty in terms of tax slavery, Plaintiffs in part reference herewith the article,

the Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center also expounds upon Everson v.

Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) to explain why the First

Amendment is misconstrued by misconstruction of the 14th Amendment:

"For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions
for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment
had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment
applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil
War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state
shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law... .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that
the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process
clause. "54

135. Plaintiffs’ views on the subject of Liberty versus tax slavery have also been

expressed by Former Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who is also the former United

States Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council, and has a Ph.D.

from Harvard and also served as Assistant Secretary of State for International

Organizations during the Reagan administration. Mr. Keyes has also equated the U.S. tax

code to slavery. He has been a regular on Free Congress Foundation's National

Empowerment Television and a favorite on the Conservative lecture circuit:

54
Establishment Clause, The First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20001;
(http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx)

104
 "We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with
liberty. It is actually a form of slavery.... Under the income tax, the government
takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax,
therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all
the money we earn." (Alan Keyes, 2000 Presidential candidate)

136. In so stating, Plaintiffs are aware that the Courts have consistently declined to take a

rigid, absolutist view of the Establishment Clause, refusing to construe the Religion

Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as

illuminated by History, and in doing so have historically rejected "ahistorical literalism,"

and instead has turned to history, practice, precedent, and the structure of the

Constitution. However, without emphasizing the significance of the historical Christian

influence on the Framers of the Constitution, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, and

the context of the Inalienable Right of Liberty as set forth in the Declaration of

Independence, and First Amendment, an individual could easily miss the original intent

of the subject of Religious Freedom, and in doing so, simply follow in the footsteps of

those who would force, unconditionally, a Thirteenth and/or Fourteenth Amendment

interpretation upon the population in general.

137. For example, in United States v. Astrup, No. 05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006) the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in stating “Astrup’s

constitutional and jurisdictional arguments are wholly frivolous. These contentions have been

repeatedly rejected by the IRS and the federal courts. See, e.g. ,United States v. Ramsey,

992 F.2d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 1993) (determining that the taxpayer had “no First Amendment

right to avoid federal income taxes…”);” And, in relying on U.S. v. Ramsey, 992 F.2d

831,833 (8th Cir. 1993), quoting U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 260, held that there is “no

105
First Amendment right to avoid federal income taxes on religious grounds.” And

although Ramsey and Lee were Free Exercise cases that did not involve a Petition for

Redress of a violation by the Government of any Article of the Constitution or the refusal

of the Government to justify and/or cease its unlawful behavior, Plaintiffs contend that

the many courts erred in deciding for the proposition that the imposition of taxes did

not substantively infringe the exercise of religion, simply because such laws represent

an attempt to regulate religious practices.55 But, just as importantly, when the Second

Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision in United States v. Astrup, No.

05-5701-cv (2d Cir. 06/14/2006), as it stands one must consider the fact that under the

Constitution, any rational that would allow the Government to violate any Article of the

Constitution is itself an unconstitutional act, but one must also rely on history, the

framers’ other writings as well as prior judicial precedent when considering the meaning

of the term “establishment of religion” as the term was intended, to prohibit the

establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over

another, even when the many are not be aware of the nature of their actions. In the words

of the Court in Everson:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least

this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither
can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion
over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain
away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-

55
See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943) (noting that “[f]reedom of press, freedom of
speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position” to economic interests); see also id. at 121
(Reed, J., dissenting) (“None of the provisions of our Constitution is more venerated by the people or
respected by legislatures and the courts than those which proclaim for our country the freedom of religion
and expression.”).

106
 attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the
clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S.
at page 164." (Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
[Emphasis added]

138. That is, in terms of our God given Inalienable Right to Liberty, even an

Amendment to the Constitution can not divorce the People from their right to not be

Slaves and especially in the context of a Christian’s Right to Religious Freedom from the

(re)establishment of a national religion by governments and the establishment of social

slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery) and laws which has

historically been associated with the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical

Beast:

…under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons
under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the
system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu’s mission
involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth
in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh’s dream of the beasts of the field
which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15),
without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under
that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has
contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state
(Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system
whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity
view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and
monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be “only in the eyes of
those who would want the model of ‘powers-that-be’ perpetrated ad infinitum.”

139. As members of WTP Organization, Plaintiffs belief systems with respect to their

First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom is supported by various publications

107
including “2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship”,56 “Why Have Our Churches Been

Silenced”,57 and “Does God Belong In Civil Government” 58 and, this type of belief

system or animosity towards peonage in terms of tax slavery is a very common one as is

evident from this quote of Robert Bernhoft:

Robert Bernhoft, quoted By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

"The federal income tax is a slave tax. We're a free people, we're not slaves. There
are so many constitutional violations and legal problems with the current tax as
it's imposed and collected that the tax will unwind eventually, somehow." [emphasis
added] (Exhibit 43)

140. However, as stated earlier, when most people think of the subjects of “peonage”

and/or “slavery” they are only able to relate to the subject in terms of what is definable as

“chattel slavery” whereas the subject of “slavery” in the context of the Declaration of

Independence, lends itself to an entirely different interpretation relative to the People’s

Inalienable Right of Liberty and the First Amendment, wherein-by the subject also

includes a number of other forms of “slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’

as political slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery. As it stands,

one must consider the fact that under the Constitution, any form of Slavery itself is

unconstitutional and as a God given right, even an Amendment to the Constitution can

not divorce the People from their right to be Free, and even more so if they recognize

their Judeo-Christian heritage.

56
See 2002 Freedom Drive: Houses of Worship
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDhow.htm);
57
WHY HAVE OUR CHURCHES BEEN SILENCED?
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/WHYSILENCED.PDF);
58
DOES GOD BELONG IN CIVIL GOVERNMENT?
(http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/FDmisc/DoesGodBelongInCivilGovernment.PDF);

108
141. In terms of the historical context,59 writers on the subject have tended to lose touch

with (1) the role of the Sanhedrin in the process of Redemption and (2) the fact the good

Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) was convicted and suffered the crucifixion (actually the

"stauros" is a Greek word which translates as "staff" or “stake” and primarily an "upright

stake"60 and for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar.

That is, based upon the account presented in Matthew 22: 15-22, Mark 12: 13-17, and

Luke 20: 20-26), our culture almost always claims that Jesus unconditionally condoned

the paying of taxes. Yet, based upon the passages referencing Jesus’ answers to the spies

of the Pharisees and Herodians, they in fact handed over Jesus to the Roman Governor,

and the two criminal complaints against him were (1) that Jesus was encouraging his

followers not to pay tribute to Caesar, and (2) that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the

Christ and King of the Jews. In any account, the event is recorded as follows:

142. Although the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus to death, they had to present this

judgment to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Usually Pilate lived in Caesarea, but he

had come to Jerusalem to watch the Jews in the Holy City during Passover. He stayed in

his palace which Herod the Great had built for himself in the highest part of the city.

143. At sunrise, the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate' they remained outside the palace

door so they would not come into contact with a pagan polytheist and thus be defiled
59
The historical context presented in paragraphs 141 through 144 of this complaint can also be reviewed at
a number of on-line sources, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Reference.com,
(http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); Medlibrary.org,
(http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Render_unto_Caesar...); as well as being published in other more expansive
documents, e.g., “Perspectives on Transformational Leadership in the Sanhedrin of Ancient Judaism”,
Management Decision: Focus on Management History, Vol. 41(2), 2003, 199-207. (c)2003.
60
cf. Thayers New Greek English Lexicon p. 586.

109
(i.e., if they were defiled, they would not be allowed to celebrate Passover). Therefore,

the governor had to come outside in order to ask the Jews what he should do with the

prisoner? They said, "We have judged him and according to our Law he should be put to

death." "So he deserves death; but what crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. "If he

were not a criminal we would not have brought him to you. We have two complaints

against him. He is encouraging our people to rebel and not to pay tribute to Caesar. And,

he proclaims himself to be the CHRIST and King of the Jews.

144. In this same context, most people are also not aware that there is a considerable

amount of information in the Talmud61 about Jesus’ motivation in encouraging the people

to rebel and not to pay the taxes used to pay for construction,62 and of course, Acts 5:17-

18 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial

before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke 22:66 also refer to the

council or Sanhedrin as trying Jesus because of His outspokenness and the fact that Jesus

61
Most people are not aware that there is a considerable amount of information in the Talmud about the
ancient Sanhedrin, which was the legal-religious Jewish court that evolved away from the priesthood
following the overthrow in approximately 148-164 BCE (depending upon source) of the Greeks who had
occupied ancient Judah. It is recorded that in about 175 BCE, the Hellenists, admirers of Greek culture,
whose ranks included most of the aristocratic priests, neglected their priestly duties in the interest of
participating in Greek games and set to work transforming the Jewish Temple and the Jewish religion. The
high priest Jason, for example, erected a gymnasium near the Temple for sporting events and young men
participated naked, in the manner of the Greek Olympics, Hellenization resulted in the growth of
immorality and the decline of religious observance, and laws were even passed prohibiting the practice of
Judaism, especially circumcision and keeping the Sabbath and festivals. Eventually, the high priest,
Menelaus, who succeeded Jason, built an acropolis that overshadowed the Temple and a statue of Jupiter
was erected in the Temple and to add insult to injury pigs were brought as sacrifices. In order to pay for all
this construction, taxes were raised, and of course, Acts 5:17-18 refer to the high priest’s arresting Peter
and the apostles, and Acts 5:27 refers to a trial before a Sanhedrin, and Matthew 27:1, Mark 15:1, and Luke
22:66 also refer to the council or Sanhedrin as trying the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (Jesus) a criminal
because of His outspokenness and the fact that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate later convicted Him of
the same resulting in HIS suffering the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and not to pay taxes
as tribute to Caesar. As such, by example Jesus’ suffering offers the believer the example to follow in terms
of their Right of Religious Freedom to not pay taxes when the basis of such taxation is not in compliance
with the Laws of God. (see, Zeitlin, S. (1943), Who Crucified Jesus?, Harper and Brothers, New York).
62
Johnson, P. (1987), A History of the Jews, Harper and Row Publishers, New York; Roth, C. (1948), A
Short History of the Jewish People, East and West Library, London.

110
was later convicted and suffered the crucifixion for encouraging the people to rebel and

not to pay taxes as tribute to Caesar.

145. And when we talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth,

Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization, also believe that the subjects of “Peonage”

or “Debt Bondage or Bonded Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit

spending needs to be mentioned, as well as the fact that the subject of “Slavery” includes

more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a number of other forms of “Slavery”

which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political slavery, land slavery (also called

real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of tax slavery, and while Plaintiffs

certainly do not intend to present within this petition to the court all the pertinent

references necessary to classify it as an abstract treatise of theological truths, Plaintiffs

have offered herewith that in addition to all of the points in law put forth in the We the

People v. United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211) with Petition for Rehearing of

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Certiorari now before United States Supreme Court,

Plaintiffs contend that neither the US Government nor the Government’s Contractor (the

IRS) has a right to their souls, and in this context the IRS’ administrative actions do

constitute a violation of Plaintiffs’ Right to Religious Freedom because the IRS does not

have a right to the Plaintiffs’ soul or any part of their soul, and in this context, Plaintiffs

believe that their use of the word “soul” is in the same context as set forth under

Yahwistic Theory, as well as, for all intents and purposes, in the same context used by

111
Jim Davidson, of the National Taxpayers Union, which is reported by the authors of Give

Me Liberty63 this way:

Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union, quoted by GiveMeLiberty.50megs.com.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to
be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and hopeless." [emphasis added]

146. In order to understand this, one must first understand that prior to the Book of

Wisdom the only understanding of the human soul was the vital force of the body in

which all that is experienced physiologically was the measure of the soul.64

147. In this same context, where the soul is the vital force of the body, even the very first

founders of this country were very clear that even a man's possessions were equated with

the man's soul as shown in "England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with

establishing the first English colony in the New World):65

Quote from England and the War, By Walter Raleigh

"The State, organized as absolute power, responsible to no one, with no duties to its
neighbour, and with only nominal duties to a strictly subordinate God, has challenged
the soul of man in its dearest possessions." [emphasis added]

63
Quote of Jim Davidson, National Taxpayers Union, reported by GiveMeLiberty.50megs.com at
(http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com/Death%20and%20Taxes.htm).
64
The definition of the soul as the vital force of the body can be found in various religious writings,
including the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (1963). A translation and adaptation of A. van dun
Born's Bijbels Woordenboek, Second Revised Ed, 1945-57, by Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., Executive
Secretary of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.
In this context, the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible went to a great length to document and
extensively reference the term so as to provide the reader with an appropriate means of understanding the
words used in the bible apart from the corruption of ideas that would otherwise arise from Hellenistic
(Greco-Oriental) premises of the nature of and meanings of such words, and it is in this context, which was
the same context the good Rabbi Yeshu Ben Yosef (aka Jesus) spoke, which was the ancient Semitic
language of Aramaic, that the authors the Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible have documented the
meanings of the term “soul” prior to and following the influence of the Hellenists.
65
"England and the War" By Walter Raleigh (credited with establishing the first English colony in the
New World), which can also be viewed on line at (www.authorama.com/book/england-and-the-war.html):

112
148. The founders of this country were very clear in their use of the word “soul” in

connection with one’s productivity and creations, and this is shown in Paul J. Cella III’s

Technology and the Spirit of Ownership:66

"In the hyper-modern age, it is sometimes a challenge to remember the human hands
behind every technological artifact, and to remember the distinctly human character of
production itself. As G. K. Chesterton elegantly put it in his 1935 book The Well and
the Shallows:

The man who makes an orchard where there has been a field, who owns the
orchard and decides to whom it shall descend, does also enjoy the taste of apples;
and let us hope, also, the taste of cider. But he is doing something very much
grander, and ultimately more gratifying, than merely eating an apple. He is
imposing his will upon the world in the manner of the charter given him by the
will of God; he is asserting that his soul is his own, and does not belong to the
Orchard Survey Department, or the chief Trust in the Apple Trade. But he is also
doing something which was implicit in all the most ancient religions of the earth;
in those great panoramas of pageantry and ritual that followed the order of the
seasons in China or Babylonia; he is worshipping the fruitfulness of the world.

An orchard shares something very basic with a computer: it is a technological artifact.

It is the produce of human creativity engaging the natural world. An animal will never
make an orchard, even if it will make a nest. But men make things which fill no
immediate need—save their own need to master and shape the materials of the earth.
"And God said unto them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and
over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'" The biblical tradition calls men
image-bearers, reflecting in some small but real way the singular power of Divine
Creativity. It was the Creator who gave us the principle of property and charged us
with the duty and privilege of interacting with the created world. This doctrine is what
Chesterton refers to when he writes of a "charter" given by God. The original author of
the ownership society was also the Author of the universe." [emphasis added]

SUMMARY

149. Plaintiffs believe that Petitioning the government for a Redress of Grievances is the

only non-violent way that We, The People, have to hold our servant government

accountable to its primary role of protecting the People’s individual, Inalienable Rights to

66
Paul J. Cella III’s "Technology and the Spirit of Ownership," The New Atlantis, Number 9, Summer
2005, pp. 55-64, can also be viewed on line at (www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/cella.htm).

113
Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Right to Petition for a Redress

of Grievances is a Right for the individual to hold government accountable to the

Constitution, the Bill of Rights and to the protection, preservation and enhancement of

individual Rights, Liberties and Freedoms.

150. As a First step, Plaintiffs believe that our servant government of the People is

obligated to listen and honestly respond to We, The People’s Petitions for Redress,

otherwise individual Rights are at risk of a take-over by the servant of the majority, and

the Right to a Redress67 of Grievances itself is not satisfied and the People are thereby

subjected to the very forms of slavery which the Official Acts passed by the Continental

Congress and Declaration of Independence, as well the Constitution and first Thirteen

Amendments, were established as official Laws of the Land, and the fact that the

Congress created by the Constitution of 1789 was qualitatively different than that created

by the Articles of Confederation, in which, among other things, it had ‘legislative’

powers and could enact ‘law’, which the Article Congress did not have, could not and

does not detract from the fact that it is the People’s Right to retain their money pending a

Redress of Grievances. 68

67
Redress: 1 a: relief from distress, b: a means of obtaining a remedy; 2: compensation (as damages) for
wrong or loss. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published
under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
68
“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. “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.

114
151. As such, Plaintiffs maintain that the United States Government as well as the

Government Contractors such as the IRS is/are obligated to respond to Petitions for

Redress of Grievances, and the People have a Right of enforcement, especially when, as

outlined herein, the oppression is caused by unconstitutional government acts and the

Government refuses to be held accountable by answering the questions in the People’s

Petitions for Redress of Grievances involving Constitutional torts.

152. Yet, while the first vice is the United States federal government’s misbehavior in

making policy without regard to the First Amendment’s right of the people to a Redress

of Grievances and the ethics to actually confess to it and carry it out, and thereby being

complicit in act(s) of fraud involving silence only said acts of fraud involving only

silence is/are not the subject of this complaint given 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, and it is

therefore clear to Plaintiffs that neither of these Branches of our government authorized

peonage or tax slavery, and for that reason this complaint is not against the United

States for act(s) of fraud involving only silence wherein-by duty and liability is to be

determined and defined in federal courts as a matter of general law, but rather this action

is being brought as a result of the greater acts by the Government Contractor (the IRS),

who, with knowledge and forethought, “actually not potentially” committed acts of

retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of

115
Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in this context the IRS has admitted to in

public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30 of this

complaint), of engaging in retaliatory administrative actions taken against Plaintiffs under

the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs guaranteed First Amendment Right to

Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the Government accountable to the

Constitution, and as evidenced by the falsification of damages to qualify for a complaint

under Article III of the Constitution, in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’

participating organization, WTP Organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this

complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim of

multiple acts in violation of our God given enumerated Rights such as Liberty, which

must necessarily include freedom from all forms of slavery, including but not limited to

the subject chattel slavery, political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery, our natural

Rights of Association, Privacy, Property and our Right to Trial by Jury, even occurred

within this District Court, and Plaintiffs reassert their beliefs herein to say once again that

our Right to Trial by Jury must be recognized before we might be deprived of any of

these other Rights.

153. Apart from everything put forth by WTP Organization thus far, when the Plaintiffs

presenting this action talk about what it means to be an American with Liberty and Truth,

we can not help but believe that if the District Courts continue to maintain that they are

divested of jurisdiction over cases involving the IRS, holding that they are barred by the

Tax Injunction Act, the question must also be asked of the District Court in terms of what

does that mean in terms of the subjects of “Peonage” or “Debt Bondage or Bonded

116
Labor” as a means of paying off government’s deficit spending, as well as the fact that

the subject of “Slavery” includes more than just “chattel slavery” as it also involves a

number of other forms of “Slavery” which are definable in terms of ‘Subjects’ as political

slavery, land slavery (also called real slavery) and tax slavery, and in terms of the issue of

tax slavery, the statement must be made that for the District Court to leave the Plaintiffs

in a position where IRS administrative actions remain undisturbed would be to reverse

humanity’s steady march towards “ordered liberty,” suggesting that we transitioned from

a form of government in terms of a National Republic to a Federal Democracy without

going through the amendment process required by Article V of the Constitution.

154. Believing the preservation and protection of individual, Inalienable, creator-

endowed Rights to be the responsibility and duty of every American and Christian,

Plaintiffs have been facilitating Citizen vigilance and activism in the form of petitioning

state government since the early 1990’s, which involved the exercise of their First

Amendment Right of Petitioning the State of New York with respect to Fraud in

employment practices and the Right to Life on behalf of the Medically Frail, and in terms

of more recent events, Plaintiffs have been active members of WTP Organization signing

onto all of the Petitions for a Redress of Grievances, have been a part of a number of

demonstrations in Washington DC regarding their First Amendment Right to Petition

government for a Redress of Grievances, and were also Plaintiffs signed onto the case

We The People et al. v. United States, et al., which is/was the first impression case in

which the Federal Courts had been asked to declare the contours of the meaning of the

First Amendment’s Petition Clause.

117
155. No matter how the Federal Courts have ruled on the merits of We The People et al.

v. United States, et al., to date, the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari which is now before United States Supreme Court was filed in a timely

manner, and even though the Petition for Rehearing of Order Denying Petition for a Writ

of Certiorari was denied, it is certain that the Plaintiffs have been and continue to be

affected by such decisions as long as the Plaintiffs continue to live in the United States of

America and as long as the Constitution remains in full force and effect, but even though

the Petition for Rehearing was denied, that decision does not by any means suggest that

the Plaintiffs in this action are left with a “lack of standing” as Americans and Christians.

156. The issue being brought before the Court in this matter is not so much about the

subject matter of “taxes”, but rather an issue of popular sovereignty, the individual’s

natural Right to hold government accountable to the Constitution by Petitioning the

Government for a Redress of Grievances, Government’s obligation to provide specific,

official answers to the People’s Petitions, the Right of the People to enforce their Rights,

and the impermissibility of retaliation of the Government Contractor (IRS) against those

who Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, and the IRS knows from the

Plaintiffs’ letters, which are sworn affidavits being duly notarized, that Plaintiffs have

testified to the fact that they have Petitioned the Government for Redress of Grievances,

and even personally and repeatedly requested in all of their letters to the IRS that if the

IRS provides Plaintiffs with the law requiring them to file and/or assume a liability in

these matters they would do so, and the IRS has not only failed to respond accordingly

118
but in the face of such silence/fraud, IRS’ “enforcement actions” which are, in effect,

prohibited retaliatory administrative actions, have occurred and the list of reasonable

Constitutional Torts seems almost endless, for based upon our God given enumerated

Rights such as Liberty, which must necessarily include freedom from all forms of

slavery, the Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of

our natural Rights of Association, Privacy, Property, and our Right to Trial by Jury.

157. Given that, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional

right to Contract as long as they pay a percentage of their labor property is slavery or

peonage and therefore criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994,

for state ownership they only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is

definable in terms of slavery and therefore criminal – state ownership of their labor

property, which if constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%, and the First

Amendment explicitly preserves for the people the right to petition government officials

for the redress of grievances (We the People Found. v. United States, 2007 U.S. App.

LEXIS 10849, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the Government’s Contractor (the IRS) has

admitted in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in paragraphs #28 through #30

of this complaint) that IRS administrative actions with respect to these Petitions are

retaliatory acts, and has even gone so far as to have falsified damages in the related §

6700 Suit (Case No. 1:07-cv-0352) against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization, and

that, decisions to prosecute based on an individual's exercise of rights under the First

Amendment is considered unconstitutional selective prosecution (United States v.

Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074, 1980 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148,

1151 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620-21 (7th Cir. 1973); United

119
States v. McDonald, 553 F. Supp 1003, 1008 (S.D. Tex. 1983)), and that Plaintiffs have

offered herein the nature of authority for the levy, as the cornerstone of the process

leading up to the lien/levy procedure, and have shown that the IRS did not even bother to

seek, let alone obtain, the necessary "Court Order", and without it, the resulting liability

is that of a third party who is not knowledgeable enough to know that the IRS is not

obeying their own Regulations, let alone the law, it would seem reasonable that

Injunctive Relief should be granted, at least until the underlying questions of Fraud and

alleged violations of Plaintiffs Christian Religious Belief Systems now before this Court

are finally determined.

158. Even if the court should find that it is not the Government Contractor’s (the IRS)

responsibility to tell the third party that the Notice of Levy is invalid without the

necessary court order, the bottom line is, Plaintiffs Humbly Request that the court

demand that the IRS include the cite of authority that would reveal IRS Form 668’s

limited application - a cite that must, by law, accompany the notice – to make it

impossible for the IRS to seize property under the guise of collecting taxes.

159. If we have been correct by assuming that high ranking IRS officials know that their

retaliatory administrative actions, outlined in this complaint and as evidenced by the

falsification of damages in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating

organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) are in violation of the law,

then, in fact that their actions are willful, outrageous acts in violation of various statues,

constitutional provisions and common decency and is regarded as atrocious and

120
intolerable in a civilized society who are conspiring and acting in concert to suppress,

chill and "neutralize" our constitutionally protected activities for government reform in

such a way as to restore constitutional order and abridge our civil rights, as Americans

and Christians, Plaintiffs believe that it is their Right to not pay taxes when the basis of

such taxation is not in compliance with the Laws of God, and therefore, anything but an

all-out-affirmation of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the losses of their Liberty would thus make

it very difficult for government to proclaim the traditional American view that the people

are endowed with rights by their Creator, and that the government exists to protect those

rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION -- 18 U.S.C. § 241 & 18 U.S.C. § 1031 --

160. In violation of the spirit and intent of the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States of America wherein-by the Executive and Legislative

Branches of the Government failed to respond to the various Petitions for Redress of

Grievances involving Constitutional torts pending litigation as to their responsibility in

these matters, and particularly with respect to the Petition for a Redress of Grievances

involving the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on labor which is definable in

terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §

1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994), and in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 involving the major

fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the

United States, as outlined in paragraph #20 of this complaint involving the suppression of

evidence, as evidenced by its omission from the official record of the April 5, 2001

121
Senate Finance Committee hearing, which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of

18 U.S.C.§ 1505 (i.e., Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and

committees), the Government Contractor (the IRS), with knowledge and forethought,

“actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby

violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and in

this context the IRS has admitted to in public form, not once but twice (as indicated in

paragraphs #28 through #30 of this complaint), of engaging in retaliatory administrative

actions taken against Plaintiffs under the Color of Law without regard for the Plaintiffs

guaranteed First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances to hold the

Government accountable to the Constitution, and as evidenced by the falsification of

damages (which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (i.e.,

whistleblowers against corruption in government)) to qualify for a complaint under

Article III in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as

indicated in paragraph #4 of this complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to this claim even occurred within this District Court in the attempt to create a

false presumption involving fraud to escape answering honest questions put forth

regarding the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax on labor

(which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the

context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994) which were presented lawfully in the

context of the People’s Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, and in doing so the

Government Contractor (IRS) has retaliated against Plaintiffs to deprive us of our natural

Rights of Association, Privacy, Property, and our Right to Trial by Jury.

122
CAUSE OF ACTION –18 U.S.C. § 1621 -- PERJURY

161. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1621, even IRS Oversight Board members who are not

necessarily Government Employees, as well as Operations Managers, Revenue Officers

and other IRS Employees have taken an Oath to Uphold the Laws and the Constitution of

the United States during their terms of Office or employment, and thereafter certain

members of the IRS have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committed

acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties and

thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others from the US

Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, and, ultimately

in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it should be the Government

Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS affairs to

cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during

the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1622 -- SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

162. Based upon the falsification of damages/evidence in the related § 6700 Suit (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)) against the

Plaintiffs’ participating organization, WTP Organization, to involve others from the US

Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, any actions to

further, or seek, court enforcement of the action in question would seem to constitute

123
Subornation of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1622) because the efforts of furtherance would be in

the context of knowingly, willingly and deliberately attempting to procure an

enforcement action from the federal courts which should not continue to maintain

jurisdiction, and, ultimately in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it

should be the Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for

organizing IRS affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of

their Oaths of Office during the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 28 U.S.C. § 1343 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

163. In the context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, on the basis of Plaintiff’s

Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events like the November 27,

1773 Boston Tea Party, and/or Isaac Backus’ 1775 Resolution to the Massachusetts

Assembly, Plaintiffs have been wronged:

Amendment I (Religion): Document 21, Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774—75
"Is not all America now appealing to Heaven against the injustice of being taxed...We
are persuaded that an entire freedom from being taxed by civil rulers...is not mere favor
from any men in the world but a right and property granted us by God, who commands
us to stand fast in it."

164. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any government to impose

new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We, The People are limited

to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on July 4, 1776, under the

common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence accepts the Creator as the

124
only power over the People and acknowledges that governments exist to secure our Self-

Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as Liberty, in accordance with its original

intent with respect to the subject of taxation, and this complaint as a whole offers the

“Indictment” or bill of particulars documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of

our Rights and Liberties as American’s and this cause of action is “For imposing Taxes

on us without our Consent” and thereby subjecting us to tax slavery which is definable in

terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §

1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

165. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis of Plaintiff’s

Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing about the

Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the form of

slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, and as Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller so

eloquently put it the government does not have the right to apply a “direct tax”, except in

“extraordinary exigencies”: i.e., And, that refers to a war in which there is Constitutional

Declaration of War. Wherein-by after July 4th 1776, it was not possible for any

government to impose new legal duties on the People in the several states, such that We,

The People are limited to and cannot be burdened beyond the legal duties they had on

July 4, 1776, under the common law, and wherein-by the Declaration of Independence

accepts the Creator as the only power over the People and acknowledges that

governments exist to secure our Self-Evident, God given, enumerated Rights such as

Liberty, in accordance with its original intent with respect to the subject of the right to

125
trial by jury, this complaint as a whole offers the “Indictment” or bill of particulars

documenting the "repeated injuries and usurpations" of our Rights and Liberties as

American’s, and this cause of action is “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of

Trial by Jury”, and thereby subjecting us not only to tax slavery (which is definable in

terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. §

1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994) but to political slavery as well.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

166. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis

of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing

about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax, and making the

form of slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, wherein the loss of their Self-

Evident God given Right of Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of

freedom chattel slavery, which is the subject of the Thirteenth Amendment, and in terms

of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery),

this cause of action is for violating the Plaintiffs Right to Religious Freedom, where IRS

actions are in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First

Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e.,

as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men)

includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the

resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as

the Biblical Beast:

126
 …under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas
persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence
relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your
aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient
system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21)
as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left
the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their
lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system
of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the
state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-
27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby
each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity
view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very
dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be
"only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be'
perpetrated ad infinitum."

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

167. In context 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the basis

of Plaintiff’s Religious beliefs and in appreciation of the history and events bringing

about the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax and making the

form of slavery known as tax-slavery unconstitutional, wherein Plaintiffs have suffered

the loss of their Self-Evident God given Right of Liberty in terms of freedom from all

forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), as evidenced by the

events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Christ and very foundations of Liberty

expressed by this country’s founders (which is set forth in part within paragraphs #165

through #173 of this complaint, with supporting referenced footnotes), such that freedom

from tax slavery is an all but forgotten Right of Religious Freedom, and the IRS, through

the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have violated the

Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians,

127
our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I

was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from

Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is

manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast, and further, in

the context of the Right of every American and Christian to withhold their money from

government when that money would go towards activities which are not in compliance

with the Laws of God, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and

Revenue Officers, have violated the natural Right of Men over their servant governments

which is the cornerstone of our form of governance -- the fifth of the five Rights in the

Bill of Rights and is guaranteed by the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ...

abridging ... the Right of the People … to Petition the Government for a Redress of

Grievances", such that, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers,

Revenue Officers and other employees, have violated the Plaintiffs Right to act in

accordance with both their Right to Religious Freedom and in free exercise of the First

Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances in complete accordance with

the Official Acts69 of the framers of our US Constitution and Bill of Rights, enabling us,

We, the People, to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, by including the

"Capstone Right."

69
“As a matter of litigation of WTP Foundation’s historic Right-to-Petition Lawsuit, We the People v.
United States (USDC Case No. 04-cv-01211), the remedy for the act(s) of fraud involving only silence in
the face of the People who act to peaceably procure relief is set forth as having been defined long ago in
Act passed unanimously by the Continental Congress. (See Journals of the Continental Congress.
Journals 1:105-113.), and expounded upon by Thomas Jefferson as the People’s Right of “…intercession
for redress of grievances and reestablishment of rights…” (See Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North,
1775. Papers 1:225.).

128
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

168. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have put forth the false presumption that

debts were owed by the Plaintiffs and other Americans, using an artifice of fraud to

escape the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax which must be

“apportioned” and have refused to respond to all inquiries into said Constitutional

deprivation and inquiries into actions of IRS agents who willfully and knowingly entered

false and fraudulent information into IRS computer systems concerning alleged liability

and alleged debts owed to the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless

harassment and intimidation, including threats of liens, threats of levies, threats of

property seizures, notices of liens, notices of levies, interference with normal business

transactions, including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander

and other serious unwarranted abuses, have refused to respond to questions presented in

lawful presentation by WTP Organization in terms of Plaintiffs’ exercise of our First

Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances involving constitutional torts,

have refused to follow Supreme Court decisions quoted repeatedly within the context of

said Petitions and supporting documentation, as well as individually by the Plaintiffs,

deliberately committed acts in violation of their Oaths of Office during the course of their

official duties and thereby perjured their Oaths by falsifying evidence to involve others

from the US Department of Justice to unknowingly become agents of IRS retaliation, and

committed acts of further harassment and intimidation by mailing the Plaintiffs their own

129
personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment to convey the IRS’s message

that being affiliated with WTP Organization for the purpose of Petitioning Government

for a Redress of Grievances and withholding what Plaintiffs believe to be their own

property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their labor (not to be

confused with the gains and profits derived from the labor of others), the hard-earned

fruits of their labor – would thereby expose themselves to criminal liability and other

serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial

difficulties of having been put out of work.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

169. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment,

the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of Plaintiff

William M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore Plaintiff not

only contend that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the

Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was

never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning

the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of

the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by his

Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with his only copy, and because, under

these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by

petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to

130
Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately deprived the Plaintiff of his due process rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

170. While Plaintiffs were about the free exercise of rights under the First Amendment,

the IRS did issue the Summons dated September 5, 2007, in the name of the Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene, which was sent to the Plaintiff’s Employer, therefore the Plaintiff not

only contends that this act constitutes a selective unconstitutional act but also that the

Plaintiff was deprived of Due Process of Law, because the Summons in question was

never sent to Plaintiff’s PO Box to allow the Plaintiff the ability to respond by petitioning

the District Court in a timely manner, and the only reason the Plaintiff has knowledge of

the Summons in question is because the Plaintiff was notified of its existence by her

Employer, who thereupon provided the Plaintiff with her only copy, and because, under

these conditions, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to respond to the Summons by

petitioning the District Court in a timely manner, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately deprived the Plaintiff of her due process rights.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1346 – MAIL FRAUD

171. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1346, defining Mail Fraud in terms of a "scheme or

artifice to defraud" including a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible

right of honest services”, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers

131
and Revenue Officers, did knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately mail the

Plaintiffs their own personal copy of the US District Court’s summary judgment against

WTP Organization for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of the intangible right of the

honest services that WTP Organization provided the Plaintiffs and other Americans, and,

ultimately in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 4 Plaintiffs believe that it should be the

Government Contractor (the IRS) which should be held accountable for organizing IRS

affairs to cause others to become subject to commit acts in violation of their Oaths of

Office during the course of their official duties.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

172. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)

– Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and

thereafter it is assumed that the IRS mailed a copy of the same to one of Plaintiff William

M. Greene’s past employers, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to worry of public

humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other

serious unwarranted abuses.

132
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD
SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

173. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)

– Notice of Levy dated May 22, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and

thereafter Plaintiff William M. Greene’s present employer notified him that they had

received a copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation,

intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, and other serious

unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

174. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668(Y)(c) –

Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address,

133
and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the Albany County Clerk’s Office and

was told that it had been filed with the Albany County Clerk, thereby subjecting the

Plaintiff to endless harassment and intimidation, including threats of levies, threats of

property seizures, notices of levies, interference with normal business transactions,

including unlawful bank and payroll seizures, public humiliation, slander and other

serious unwarranted abuses, including but not limited to the substantial financial

difficulties of having been put out of work.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

175. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice Form 668-A(ICS)

– Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007 sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and

thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified her that they had received a

copy of the same, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation,

interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

134
CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD
SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

176. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-

A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,

addressed to Plaintiff William M. Greene’s bank account at Transportation Alliance

Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation, interference

with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

177. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-

A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,

addressed to both of the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank accounts at Transportation

135
Alliance Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to public humiliation, intimidation,

interference with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

178. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-

A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box,

addressed in the name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene with notice to attach funds deposited

in Citizens Bank, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to intimidation, interference with

normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1341 -- MAIL FRAUD

SENDING FALSE DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE U.S. MAIL
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD

179. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees, have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately sent false documents through the U.S. Mail system,

containing false and malicious allegations of liability and alleged debts owed by the

Plaintiff to the United States, involving the fraudulent attached notice IRS Form 668-

136
A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007 mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and

addressed in the name of Plaintiff William M. Greene with notice to attach funds

deposited in Citizens Bank, a Bank in which the Plaintiff does not have an account but

his son William M. Greene, Jr. does, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to intimidation and

fear that the IRS was about to seize even the money in his son’s bank account, interfere

with normal business transactions, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

180. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,

which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff

William M. Greene’s Bank account which he held jointly with Plaintiff Karen M. Greene

at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, and seized property in the amount of

$673.01, without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that

would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

181. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,

137
which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, served on Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene’s bank account which she held jointly with Plaintiff William M. Greene

and seized property in the amount of $673.01, as well as Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s

bank account which she held individually and seized property in the amount of $6.80,

both bank accounts being seized at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without

filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have

exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

182. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007,

which is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized

property from the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s personal bank account at Citizens Bank,

1440 Central Ave., Albany NY, in the amount of $1,077.37 without filling out the form

668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

183. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 4, 2007, which

138
is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from

the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,972.66

without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would

have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

184. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, which

is a materially false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from

the Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $1,475.00

without filling out the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would

have exposed the IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 1001 -- FRAUD

ILLEGALLY BYPASSING LEVY REQUIREMENTS

185. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately issued IRS Form 668-W(ICS) dated January 28, 2008, which is a materially

false and fraudulent document for such purposes, and seized property from the Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene’s Payroll Account in the dollar amount of $352.30 without filling out

139
the form 668-B which is the procedure to perfect levies that would have exposed the

IRS’s fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. 1344(2) – BANK FRAUD

WILLFULLY EXECUTING AND ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE
SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES OF BANK FRAUD

186. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes

and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation

Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, which is a financial institution as defined in 26 U.S.C.

408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the

issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on

Plaintiff William M. Greene’s bank business account at Transportation Alliance Bank in

Ogden, UT, without attachment or execution under judicial process (a court order) as

required by 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. 1344(2) – BANK FRAUD

WILLFULLY EXECUTING AND ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE
SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES OF BANK FRAUD

187. In the context of 18 U.S.C. 1344(2), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes

and artifices to obtain money and funds under the custody and control of Transportation

140
Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, which is a financial institution as defined in 26 U.S.C.

408(n), and did so by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations in the

issuance of Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007, served on two of

Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s bank accounts (being both single and joint business

accounts) at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without attachment or

execution under judicial process (a court order) as required by 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION -18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

188. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice

of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the

name of Plaintiff William M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent

pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff William M.

Greene and Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned jointly in their business bank account at

Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation of due

process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION-18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

189. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice

141
of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, in the

name of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent

pretenses and representations, deprive the Plaintiff of the funds that Plaintiff Karen M.

Greene and Plaintiff William M. Greene owned and had in their joint Bank account at

Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, as well as depriving the Plaintiff of the

funds that Plaintiff Karen M. Greene owned and had in her personal business Bank

account at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT, without a court order in violation

of due process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION-18 U.S.C. § 2113-UNLAWFUL BANK DEPOSIT SEIZURES

190. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly, willfully,

maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, served IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice

of Levy dated October 29, 2007, on Citizens Bank, Lincoln, RI, in the name of Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene, and the IRS did by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and

representations, depriving the Plaintiff of funds in the amount of $1,077.37 that Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene had in her personal bank account at Citizens Bank, Albany NY, without

a court order in violation of due process under 26 U.S.C. 6332(c).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

PASSING FALSE INFORMATION TO STATE AND/OR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

191. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

142
deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes

and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as

evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for

the Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same

including the copy of Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated April 18,

2007, with the Amount being $171,479.86 filed with Albany County.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

PASSING FALSE INFORMATION TO STATE AND/OR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS

192. In the context of – 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately conspired among themselves to execute and to attempt to execute schemes

and artifices of fraud by passing false information to State and/or County Governments as

evidenced by the attached copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the

Document Details whereby the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same

including the copy of Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien dated August 14,

2007, with the Amount being $96,305.16 filed with Albany County.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF PROPERTY AND PROTECTIONS OF LAW

193. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS

Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly,

willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the

143
protections of law, because IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS) are the

"Notice of Levy" forms which are materially false and fraudulent documents for such

purposes and a lawful Levy can only be effected by Form 668-B. Nor can IRS Officials

claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) clearly shows that Levy may not

be made on private individuals.

194. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue

Officers, have levied Plaintiffs in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6331(a), thereby depriving

Plaintiffs of their own property - namely, their money earned in direct exchange for their

labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits “derived from” the labor of others),

the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the IRS has caused undue hardship, including but not

limited to the substantial financial difficulties of having been put out of work, and

without moneys derived from the direct exchange for their labor, the IRS is responsible

for the Plaintiffs inability to pay creditors, resulting in many of the Plaintiffs debts being

unpaid and causing other abuses, credit problems and possible other legal actions and/or

repossessions.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

195. In the context of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the IRS, through the authority given to IRS

Officials, Operations Managers, Revenue Officers and other employees have knowingly,

willfully, maliciously, and deliberately, under color of law, deprived Plaintiffs of the

protections of law. Nor can IRS Officials claim to be ignorant of the fact that 26 U.S.C.

144
6332(c) expressly states that Levy may not be made on bank deposits without a court

order.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

196. Plaintiffs, as well as every American signed on to WTP Organization’s Petitions,

have been exercising their First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of

Grievances, which in significant part, have challenged underlying tax liability. Plaintiffs

have also written numerous letters to the IRS challenging the underlying tax liability, and

although 26 U.S.C. 6330(c)(2)(A) might be thought of as the authority requiring an

investigation of challenges to underlying tax liability, 26 U.S.C. 3401(c) provides the

definition of “employee” which is obviously misapplied, as including all employees in

the United States and because these definitions limit the scope of application of the W-4

form to said defined “employees” in 26 U.S.C. 3401 and 26 U.S.C. 3406(h)(10),

Plaintiffs allege that it was this kind of fraud which was originally perpetrated upon the

Plaintiffs to unknowingly and wrongfully believe that they, as well as most Americans,

were responsible for a direct tax without “apportionment” on their money earned in direct

exchange for their labor (not to be confused with the gains and profits derived from the

labor of others), and although Plaintiffs are currently self-employed, again with earnings

derived only through the hard-earned fruits of their labor, the only reason they originally

started filing and paying taxes was because of the fraud placed upon them long ago, and

then when they sought to find answers in the form of the questions presented in the

Petition for Redress of Grievance and personal letters the IRS refused to respond with

145
even a single law which made them “liable for” a tax and the IRS retaliated against the

Plaintiffs where the IRS Code was used to supersede the Plaintiffs’ natural Rights of

Privacy, Property and Right to Trial by Jury, even though Plaintiffs questions were

properly put forth in terms of the Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Petition for a

Redress of Grievances, and in this context, the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights must be

recognized before we might be deprived of any of our Rights by any IRS administrative

process, and for this reason, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers

and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under

color of law, conspired against the Plaintiffs’ rights and have deprived them of the

protections of law.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

197. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue

Officers, has knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately and under color of law

and regulations, deprived Plaintiff of Due Process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,

concerning the collection of alleged debts and alleged liability for a direct tax without

“apportionment”, thereby subjecting Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies,

property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with

normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

146
CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF LAW

198. After refusing to respond to Plaintiffs request for any reference of law requiring

them to file, the IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue

Officers, filled out or caused subordinates to fill out 1040 forms (subornation of perjury),

under the name of Plaintiffs and other Americans, which is not authorized by regulations,

calling it a “substitute return”. These bogus 1040 forms have then been used to falsely

create an “assessment” on the Plaintiffs and other Americans.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

BY ENTERING FALSE INFORMATION INTO COMPUTER SYSTEMS

199. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely

indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The

nature of said false information claimed that Plaintiffs were liable and owed an individual

income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by the U.S.

Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal in

the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to

endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public

humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and

other serious unwarranted abuses.

147
CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
BY ENTERING FALSE INFORMATION INTO COMPUTER SYSTEMS

200. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue

Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately entered false

information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely indicating that 26 USC

6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, thus depriving the Plaintiffs of due

process, and deliberately used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331,

paragraph “a”, thereby subjecting the Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies,

property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with

normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING LIABILITY

201. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely

indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for and owed a debt to the United States. The

nature of said false information claimed that the Plaintiffs were liable and owed an

individual income tax, which is an un-apportioned direct tax and which is prohibited by

the U.S. Constitution and definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore,

criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, thereby subjecting the

Plaintiff to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public

148
humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and

other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IMPLIMENTING REGULATIONS

202. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely

indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no implementing

regulation and statute in the laws of the United States, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to

endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens, public

humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and

other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING STATUTES AT LARGE

203. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, haveknowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely

indicating that the Plaintiffs were liable for an alleged tax that had no Statute At Large or

implementing regulation for the collection of the alleged debts, thereby subjecting the

Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens,

public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander,

149
and other serious unwarranted abuses, while at the same time refusing to respond to

reasonable requests to provide any statute at large which authorizes collections on private

citizens, working for private companies.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS CONCERNING 26 USC 6331(a)

204. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately entered false information into the Internal Revenue computer system, falsely

indicating that 26 USC 6331 authorized levy and lien on the Plaintiffs, and deliberately

used forms which omitted any reference to 26 USC 6331(a), thereby subjecting the

Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens,

public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander,

and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

ACCEDING TO AND AIDING IN FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS

205. In the context of 31 C.F.R. 0.208, the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately acceded to and aided the entering of false information into the Internal

Revenue computer system by the Operations Managers, by refusal or failure to uphold

the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States, thereby subjecting

the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies, property seizures, notices of liens,

150
public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander,

and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

CONSPIRING TO HARRASS PLAINTIFFS

206. The IRS, through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue

Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately conspired among

themselves to intimidate, threaten, oppress, and harass the Plaintiffs by using devious and

malicious methods of communication which include false, misleading, and threatening

statements sent from multiple Automated Collections Service Centers. Such malicious

methods included sending out unsigned letters in violation of Internal Revenue manual

directives. Such malicious methods included the refusal to respond to correspondences

regarding the simple question of what law made the Plaintiffs “liable for” the tax the IRS

claimed the Plaintiffs owed. Such malicious methods also included refusal of further

correspondences when Plaintiffs provided documentation showing the lack of liability,

and even after being presented with the truth about the Plaintiffs lack of liability, the IRS,

through the authority given to Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, continued to

knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and deliberately committ acts of extortion and willful

oppression under “color of law.”

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

WILLFUL EXTORTION AND OPPRESSION UNDER COLOR OF LAW

151
207. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(1), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately committed acts of extortion and willful oppression of the Plaintiffs’ rights

under “color of law”, wherein-by threatening letters were sent to Plaintiffs employer in

the form of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) and 668-W(ICS), as well as serving IRS Forms 668-

A(ICS) on Plaintiffs banks, which are fraudulent documents for the purpose of Levies

upon non-governmental employees and by omission of the statement of authority as

shown in 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) avoided detection of otherwise incomplete statements of

authority, which constitutes fraudulent statements to induce the employer and banks to

surrender property or rights of the Plaintiffs, whereby, under illegal implicit or explicit

threats stated within the context of the incomplete statement of “authority” for said

“Notice of Levy(s)” to the employer and financial institutions constitutes fraudulent

threats to Plaintiffs’ employer and banks that penalties would be laid on the employer or

bank if the employer or bank did not comply with the Levy requirements, and the IRS

was able to accomplish extortion from, and oppression of, the Plaintiffs, thereby

subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of levies and property seizures,

notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation, interference with normal business

transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

DEMANDING SUMS OTHER THAN OR GREATER THAN AUTHORIZED BY
LAW

208. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

152
deliberately demanded sums not authorized by law and sums greater than those

authorized by law, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment, threats of

levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation,

interference with normal business transactions, slander, and illness.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

UNLAWFUL SEIZURES

209. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(2), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately levied and seized private persons, who are not government employees and/or

are not otherwise “liable for” the income tax under the 16th Amendment, thereby

subjecting the Plaintiffs and other Americans to slavery and/or peonage, which is

criminal in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

WILLFULLY MAKING AND SIGNING FRADULENT STATEMENTS AND
ENTRIES

210. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g.

fraudulent penalties, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an actual lien or

levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless harassment,

threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation, intimidation,

153
interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious unwarranted

abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

WILLFULLY MAKING AND SIGNING FRADULENT STATEMENTS AND
ENTRIES

211. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately conspired among themselves to make and sign fraudulent statements, e.g.

fraudulent notices of lien and levy, and other documents sent to the Plaintiffs without an

actual lien or levy having been perfected, thereby subjecting the Plaintiffs to endless

harassment, threats of levies and property seizures, notices of liens, public humiliation,

intimidation, interference with normal business transactions, slander, and other serious

unwarranted abuses.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

WILLFUL FAILURE TO REPORT FRAUD AND VIOLATIONS OF LAW

212. In the context of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(8), the IRS, through the authority given to

Operations Managers and Revenue Officers, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately refused to properly address Plaintiffs reports of fraud and violations of the

Internal Revenue laws by subordinates or other employees or agents of the IRS, even

though the IRS Operations Managers were notified of these criminal actions in previous

communications, and as evidenced by the letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director,

Compliance Services dated January 11, 2008, Plaintiff Karen M. Greene was even

154
assessed a fine of $5,000.00 for her effort in writing her September 28, 2007 letter to

inform the Commissioner and Executive Branch of the IRS’ Fraud.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS TO DENY PLAINTIFFS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

213. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the War Powers

Clauses (by the Iraq Resolution).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

214. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

155
members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the privacy and

due process clauses (by the U.S.A. Patriot Act).

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

215. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

156
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the money and

debt limiting clauses (by the Federal Reserve System) of the Constitution.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

216. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations of the President's

failure to "faithfully execute" the immigration laws.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

217. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

157
deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to the

North American Union, Illegal Immigration.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

218. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

158
the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to

Gun Control.

CAUSE OF ACTION – 18 U.S.C. § 241 -&- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- CONSPIRACY

AGAINST RIGHTS AND OPPRESSING PLAINTIFFS IN EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO OBJECT AGAINST OTHER TORTS

219. In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the IRS, through the

authority given to Operations Managers have knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and

deliberately, under color of law, conspired to injure, hinder, and oppress the Plaintiffs, as

members of WTP Organization, exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right

involving Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Right of the People to hold the Government and

Government Contractors accountable to the Constitution regarding significant grievances

resulting from the IRS’s (as the Government's Contractor) apparent violations involving

the tax clauses (by the direct un-apportioned tax on the labor of the average American),

and, in doing so, also oppressed the Plaintiffs, as members of WTP Organization,

exercising their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment Right of the People to hold

the Government accountable for the Government's apparent violations with respect to

U.S Aid to Israel.

159
PLAINTIFFS’ DECLARATION

220. I respectfully declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct.

Dated: May 21, 2008

__________________________ __________________________
William M. Greene, pro se Karen M. Greene, pro se
PO Box 279 PO Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186 Voorheesville, NY 12186
Phone: (518) 209-2495 Phone: (518) 209-2495
And/or And/or
Phone: (518) 209-3091 Phone: (518) 209-3091

State of New York

County of Albany

On this the 21st day of May, 2008, before me, ______________________________

personally appeared William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene, known to me to be the

persons whose names are subscribed to the written instrument and acknowledged that

they executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

In witness whereof hereunto set my hand.

______________________________

160
LISTING OF EXHIBITS

1
Exhibit 1: Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue

Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, UNITED STATES’ ANSWER

AND CLAIM), Page #2 – Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4, wherein both Betty Richardson,

a United States Attorney and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice

Trial Attorney, Tax Division, “Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the

United States Government ...”

2
Exhibit 2: Copy of Freedom Flyer to encourage other truck drivers to contact WTP

Organization for the purposes of developing a new Petition involving constitutional torts

regularly experienced in the trucking industry.

3
Exhibit 3: Attached Exhibit is a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated

June 26, 1989, “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service,

there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay

income taxes."

4
Exhibit 4: David Cay Johnston’s September 17, 2003 The New York Times article,

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/business/17IRS.html?ei=5007&en=404eaa7dc6bbc

4b5&ex=1379131200&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1135436874-

ed/3ACwLrxx7BS7aAkFRIQ);

161
5
Exhibit 5: Plaintiff William M. Greene’s 09/01/02 short statements asserting knowledge

of the IRS’ fraud, in response to IRS letter dated 08/19/2002 wherein Plaintiffs’ short

response is written on form letter 2797 (CG) (Rev. )3-199);

6
Exhibit 6: William M. Greene’s first letter to the IRS, dated July 22, 2004;

7
Exhibit 7: William M. Greene’s second letter dated January 31, 2005;

8
Exhibit 8: William M. Greene’s third letter dated July 27, 2005;

9
Exhibit 9: William M. Greene’s forth letter dated April 13, 2007;

10
Exhibit 10: William M. Greene’s fifth letter dated May 5, 2007;

11
Exhibit 11: William M. Greene’s sixth letter dated September 6, 2007 which was

Response letter to the IRS mailing of the 6700 suit;

12
Exhibit 12: The seventh letter dated September 28, 2007 by Plaintiff Karen M. Greene;

13
Exhibit 13: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter it is assumed that IRS mailed a copy of the

same to one of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s past employers.

162
14
Exhibit 14: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated May 22, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff William M. Greene’s present

employer notified him that they had received a copy of the same.

15
Exhibit 15: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document

Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of

Form 668 (Y)(c)—Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated April 18, 2007, with the Amount

being “$171,479.86” filed with Albany County.

16
Exhibit 16: Copy of Plaintiff William M. Greene’s search from the New York State

Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No

Debtors found”.

17
Exhibit 17: Copy of letter signed by the Case Processing Clerk, United States District

Court, Northern District of New York, documenting that there is no record for

proceedings filed against neither William M. Greene nor Karen Greene.

18
Exhibit 18: Copy of William M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as

an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,

Philadelphia, PA 19106;

19
Exhibit 19: Copy of WTP Organization’s Black Folder;

163
20
Exhibit 20: Form 668(Y)(c) – Notice of Federal Tax Lien, dated August 14, 2007, sent

to the Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene called the

Albany County Clerk’s Office and was told that it had been filed with the Albany County

Clerk;

21
Exhibit 21: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s Document Search for the Document

Details and the Albany County Clerk provided copy of the same including the copy of

Form 668(Y)(c), dated August 14, 2007, with the Amount being “$96,305.16” filed with

Albany County.

22
Exhibit 22: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff’s mailing address, and thereafter Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer notified

her that they had received a copy of the same;

23
Exhibit 23: Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated October 4, 2007 sent to the

Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s employer, with copy of payroll statement showing the dollar

amount of $1,972.66 paid out supposedly to the United States Treasury;

24
Exhibit 24: Copy of Summons in the Matter of William M. Greene sent to Plaintiff’s

Employer;

25
Exhibit 25: Copy of Summons in the Matter of Karen Greene sent to Plaintiff’s

Employer;

164
26
Exhibit 26: Copy of letter from Henry Slaughter, Field Director, Compliance Services,

dated January 11, 2008.

27
Exhibit 27: Copy of Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s search from the New York State

Secretary of State's Website, UCC information on Filing Data Reports, reporting “No

Debtors found”.

28
Exhibit 28: Copy of Karen M. Greene’s letter dated February 11, 2008, submitted as

an IRS FOIA Request to the Disclosure Office 2, 600 Arch Street, Room 3214,

Philadelphia, PA 19106;

29
Exhibit 29: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff William M. Greene’s Bank account at

Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT;

30
Exhibit 30: Bank Copy mailed to Plaintiff; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, served on Plaintiff Karen M. Greene’s both personal and joint Bank

accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank in Ogden, UT;

31
Exhibit 31: Plaintiff copy from IRS; IRS Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to Plaintiff William M.

Greene’s Bank account at Transportation Alliance Bank;

165
32
Exhibit 32: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed to both of the Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene’s Bank accounts at Transportation Alliance Bank;

33
Exhibit 33: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box, addressed in the name of Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank;

34
Exhibit 34: Plaintiff copy from IRS; Form 668-A(ICS) – Notice of Levy, Dated

October 29, 2007, mailed to the Plaintiff’s PO Box and addressed in the name of Plaintiff

William M. Greene addressed to Citizens Bank;

35
Exhibit 35: Copy of letter, dated January 18, 2008, Citizens Bank notified Plaintiff

Karen M. Greene that the IRS served a Tax Levy against her account at RBS Citizens

Bank, N.A. with funds being withheld in the amount of $1,077.37, and a pay out date of

2-8-2008. The letter from Citizens Bank also included a copy of Form 668-A(ICS)-- IRS

Notice of Levy dated October 29, 2007.

36
Exhibit 36: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) -- Notice of Levy, dated January 3, 2008, mailed to

the Plaintiff’s PO Box.

37
Exhibit 37: IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, served upon

the Plaintiffs’ Employer, along with attached a letter notifying the employer that “This

will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can

166
not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State

fees.”

38
Exhibit 38: Copy of statement/invoice dated 01/22/08 showing $1,475.00 paid out to

Internal Revenue Services United.

39
Exhibit 39: Email from Plaintiffs employer notified them that they (the employer)

received another form, and attached IRS Form 668-W(ICS), dated January 28, 2008.

40
Exhibit 40: Plaintiffs email response to the employers’ email, explaining that it is the

Plaintiffs understanding that “IRS Forms 668-A, 668-A(c) and 668-W are the "Notices of

Levy(s)" that do not comply with Due Process of Law and therefore carries no weight at

all unless there is an actual levy from a court of law signed by a judge with a court

stamp.” Also stating that “Even then, a Levy is ONLY lawfully effected by Form 668-B,

which subjects the individual to Section 6331(a), and even that only pertains to those

persons who are subject to the provisions of IRC Subtitle E, and certain officers,

employees, and elected government officials and, of course, the government as their

"employer."”

41
Exhibit 41: Copy of IRS Forms 668-B, Levy.

167
42
Exhibit 42: Copy of employers’ email (2/22/08), providing the Plaintiffs with pages of

IRS Form 668-W(ICS) the employer had originally omitted. And, copy of payroll

statement and check to IRS in the amount of $352.30.

43
Exhibit 43: Robert Bernhoft, quoted By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com,

(www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24192);

168