Following the judge’s February 5, 2018, Order referring the case to the magistrate to conduct all pretrial proceedings, Petitioner filed the following three separate motions to dismiss with prejudice (i.e., dismissal barring prosecution of any later suit based on the same claim), each with its own particular reason:
- THE COURT LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Every act of every government officer, state or federal, must be authorized by at least one provision of the Constitution; see Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989); Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U.S. 800, 818, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 379-380, 101 S.Ct. 669, 676-677, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82-83, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Case of th [sic] Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587, 21 L.Ed. 914 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, 12 L.Ed. 1147 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813).
Petitioner on February 14, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for lack of constitutional authority that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The US attorney had 21 days from date of filing of said motion, i.e., till March 7, 2018, to file a response in opposition, but remained silent.
The reason the US attorney failed to oppose the above case-dispositive motion (i.e., a motion that is divestitive in nature and brings about the extinction of rights and disposes of the case) is that there is no provision of the Constitution that gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas.
The Court (and United States Department of Justice) is operating in Harris County, Texas, without constitutional authority.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion is the US attorney’s representation to the Court that he does not oppose it—is sufficient ground for the judge to grant Petitioner’s motion and dismiss with prejudice the case.
Upon the US attorney’s failure to respond to said motion, Petitioner on March 8, 2018, filed a notice of United States of America’s failure to oppose respondent’s case-dispositive motion to dismiss and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Whereas, the judge has no capacity to take jurisdiction or enter an order against Petitioner in Harris County, Texas, there is nothing that the US attorney could have said in opposition without incriminating himself.
In this alleged equity proceeding, the “United States” district court is an instrumentality of the District of Columbia, a Federal municipal corporation (see 28 U.S.C. Chapter 176, § 3002(15) for definition of “United States” in every civil or criminal proceeding regarding an alleged debt, such as alleged taxes, allegedly owed to the United States), and the judge is usurping exercise of jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by the corporate charter of said municipal corporation, 16 Stat 419, which is limited to the territory within the exterior limits of the District of Columbia.
- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE A PRIVATE-SECTOR BUSINESS WITH NO AUTHORITY OVER PETITIONER
Petitioner on February 27, 2018, filed an amended motion to dismiss with prejudice which asserts that, because neither the so-called Secretary of the Treasury nor his underling, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is a commissioned officer of the United States: (a) Neither is a government officer, (b) both are private-sector workers, (c) the organization over which each administers and which issued the subject IRS administrative summons, i.e., IRS, is not part of the government, (d) IRS is a private-sector organization (business), (e) the only cause of action a private-sector business such as IRS could bring against Petitioner is for breach of contract, (e) there is no evidence of any contract between IRS and Petitioner, and, therefore (f) the government’s case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The US attorney had until March 20, 2018, to file a response in opposition to this motion, but remained silent, whereupon Petitioner on March 21, 2018, filed a notice of the US attorney’s failure to oppose said motion and request for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
The US attorney’s failure to respond to this case-dispositive motion is his representation that he does not oppose it and sufficient ground for dismissal with prejudice of the case.
Every justice and judge of the United States and every United States attorney knows that the Internal Revenue Service is part of the private Federal Reserve.
To provide evidence that IRS is not part of government, Petitioner on March 1, 2018, served United States Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson (custodian of the Great Seal of the United States) with two subpoenas commanding his production, at 10:00 A.M. on March 22, 2018, of the commission as an Officer of the United States, in effect as of May 30, 2017 (date IRS administrative summons was served on Petitioner)—bearing the signature of the President of the United States and Great Seal of the United States—of (1) current Secretary of the Treasury Steven Terner Mnuchin, and (2) former Commissioner of Internal Revenue John Andrew Koskinen.
The 10:00 A.M. March 22, 2018, deadline came and went, with no word from Secretary of State Tillerson.
No commission, as an officer of the United States, exists for either man because each is a private-sector businessman.
Because Secretary of State Tillerson failed to obey the subpoenas for production of documents, Petitioner on the afternoon of the same day, March 22, 2018, filed a motion to compel compliance with Subpoenas for the production of documents, and request for an order to show cause why non-party Rex W. Tillerson should not be held in contempt and submitted a proposed Order for the judge to sign.
Secretary of State Tillerson can avoid a contempt citation simply by providing Petitioner with written certification that there is no document in his custody responsive to either of the subpoenas.
- IRS NOT PART OF “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”—WHO HAS COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT
“Fraud on the court” is defined as follows:
“fraud on the court. A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding, ● Examples are bribery of a juror and introduction of fabricated evidence.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, ed. in chief (St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999), p. 671.
The instant petition represents by inference that Internal Revenue Service is part of alleged “United States of America.”
Being an organization whose senior executive is a non-governmental private-sector businessman, IRS cannot be part of any government—either the alleged “United States of America” (moribund since June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 223, 306, sec. 182) or District of Columbia, a municipal corporation (16 Stat 419).
Whereas, only a duly commissioned officer of the United States can administer over a government organization, Internal Revenue Service cannot be part of government and alleged “United States of America” has made a false representation and committed fraud on the court.
Because alleged “United States of America” has no right to title or ownership of any alleged claim of a private business (IRS), alleged “United States of America” has failed to state a claim (of its own) upon which relief can be granted.
All the above monkey business is evidence of unclean hands on the part of alleged “United States of America,” a factor which, according to the rules of equity, deprives alleged “United States of America” of relief in this or any other such forum.
In respect of the foregoing, Petitioner on March 12, 2018, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice, to which the US attorney has until April 2, 2018, to file a response in opposition or concede by omission that he does not oppose it.
Whereas, the last time we heard anything from the US attorney was December 20, 2017 (three months ago), and the likely reason for his failure to respond to either of the first two above motions to dismiss is fear of self-incrimination, it is not likely we will hear from him on the third.
SUMMARY
The judge is an impartial referee whose job it is to help the litigants resolve their dispute.
When one litigant files a case-dispositive motion and the other fails to oppose it, the equitable thing for the judge to do is dismiss the case as requested by the movant.
Further, he who brings suit (in this instance alleged “United States of America”) has the responsibility to prosecute it, and failure to prosecute (called non prosequitur) is ground for judgment against him (and the US attorney seems to have disappeared).
Shortly after Petitioner provided evidence that IRS is engaging in evil practice against Petitioner in this case, the judge on February 5, 2018, brought in the magistrate for the purpose of producing reports and recommendations regarding all pending matters—and thereafter Petitioner filed the above three case-dispositive motions.
Whether the US attorney responds to the third above motion by April 2, 2018, or not, the magistrate will have at multiple sufficient reasons to recommend that alleged “United States of America” be denied relief in this court of equity for unclean hands and evil practice against Petitioner or that any one of Petitioner’s unresolved motions be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice.
Conversely, there appears to be no equitable reason why this case should be allowed to continue.
supremecourtcase 