IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION. Registered Mail # R US

Transcription

1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff Case No. 1:12- CR-169-MHT-WC Registered Mail # R US vs. James Timothy Turner Sui Juris Accused JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF D.O.J. REPRESENTATIVES SANDRA J. STEWART, JUSTIN GELFAND, GARY M. BORDEN AND I.R.S. AGENT SUSAN TYSON COMES NOW; James Timothy, of the Turner family, a Secured Party Creditor, hereinafter referred to as the Accused, a native- born American, One of We the People of the Alabama State Republic, a non-fourteenth Amendment United States citizen pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, and hereby submit the following Interrogatories to Plaintiffs Sandra J. Stewart, Acting U.S. Attorney, Justin Gelfand, Trial Attorney U.S. D.O.J. Tax Division, Gary M. Borden, Assistant U.S. Attorney and the IRS Agent Susan Tyson, to be answered, under oath, in twenty one (21) days from the date of service. Each Interrogatory must be answered completely. Plaintiffs must submit their Answers directly to Defendant James Timothy Turner within 21 days. Plaintiffs have an obligation, in accordance with Fed R. Civ. P. 26(e) to timely supplement their responses to these Interrogatories up to the time of trial if he learns that any or all responses are incomplete or incorrect. INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL ANSWERING PARTIES THAT ARE NAMED IN THIS INTERROGATORY: YOU ARE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT APPLY TO YOUR AGENCY. THE ANSWERING PARTYS ARE IDENTIFIED BY EITHER OR IRS OR AT THE END OF EACH NUMBERED PARAGRAPH. (a) (b) An answer must be given to each Interrogatory from the asking party. As a general rule, within 21 days after you are served with these Interrogatories,

2 you must serve your responses on the asking party. (c) (d) (e) Each answer must be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to you permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, answer it to the extent possible. Whenever an interrogatory may be answered by referring to, a document, the document may be attached as an exhibit to the response and referred to in the response. If the document has more than one page, refer to the page and section where the answer to the interrogatory can be found. Your answers to these questions must be verified, dated, and signed. You may use the following paragraph at the end of all your answers: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States that the foregoing answers are true and correct." 1. Are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the Supreme Law of the Land? 2. Can the lower courts overturn Supreme Court decisions? 3. Are the Supreme Court Rulings applied as settle case law? 4. Is it true that the Internal Revenue Manual ( ) stresses the Importance of Court Decisions and do you follow the following recommendations: a. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position? b. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts; The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court Decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code, Do the U.S. Attorneys follow the same interpretation as the Internal Revenue Manuel? c. Can you provide me with the Supreme Court ruling(s) that overturned any relevant portion, concerning the 16 th Amendment and the Constitution, of the following cases? STRATTONS INDEPENDENCE, LTD. V. HOWBERT, 231 US 399,417 (1921), MERCHANTS LOAN &TRUST CO. v. HOWBERT, 231 US 399,417(1913), US v. WHITRIDGE, 231US 144,147 (1913) EVANS v. GORE, 253 US 245,263 (1920)

3 STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO. 240 US 1,12 (1916), it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settle that the provisions of the 16 th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation d. Would the IRS and the agents for the US Attorneys be specific in their interpretation of these cases? e. Is there an expiration date on any of these cases that would make them less a part of the common law today, than they were 50 or 80 years ago? (You are representing the U.S. A. in this case and are competent in tax law and our Constitution, and should be able to answer this question.) 6. Is the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) an agency of the United States as is stated in the 6 th paragraph of the Grand Jury indictment against James Timothy Turner? 7. Do the Department of Justice Agents named above recognize the organic Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Law of the land? 8. When the organic Constitution mentions law does it mean common law? 9. In the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. Since there was no organic Act creating the IRS, it is not an agency of the United States of America, and if you believe otherwise, substantiate and prove your position by the facts and the law. 10. If it is not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS? 11. By what legal authority has Congress or any Executive Order established IRS offices inside the 50 States of the Union? 12. Does the U.S. Department of Justice have Power of Attorney to represent the IRS in federal court? 13. Were the so-called 14 th and 16 th amendments properly ratified? 14. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S , U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16 th amendment. If this is not true please state your objection 15. That so-called 16 th amendment allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987). If this is not true please state

4 your objection 16. The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT s that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the truth of the case. The so-called 16 th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C If this is not true please state your objection 17. Similarly, the so-called 14 th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14 th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People. If this is not true please state your objection 18. What are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes for a noncorporate citizen such as has been declared by the Accused? 19. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen? 20. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the state government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as the federal zone. As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no affect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now. If this is not true please state your objection 21. Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our Right of Election or freedom of choice, namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859). If this is not true please state your objection 22. Is the term income defined in the Internal Revenue Code and, if not, where is it defined? 23. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term income is not defined anywhere in the IRC: The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976). Please give the location or proof that the accused can be liable for income if there is no definition to be found. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 24. Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of income because that term was

5 believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16 th amendment, which would have introduced the term income into the U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified). It was not ratified or please prove that it was and when? 25. In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined income to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation that do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 26. In what other ways is the Internal Revenue Code deliberately vague (since all statutes, rules and regulations are to be strictly construed), and what are the real implications of that vagueness for the average American? 27. There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term income is a classic deception. IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that comes in, but nothing could be further from the truth. Income is decidedly NOT everything that comes in. If this is not true please state your objection 28. More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. If this is not true please state your objection 29. Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely. If this is not true please state your objection 30. Has Title 26 of the United States Code ( U.S.C. ) ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law? If this is not true please state your objection 31. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title. Because the term this title is not defined anywhere in the IRC, least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context. If this is not true please state your objection 32. Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code the laws which govern all the federal courts the term this title clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a

6 conclusion that this title, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such. If this is not true please state your objection 33. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes? 34. Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all. If this is not true please state your objection 35. It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts (referring to district Court of United States) are not the same as the United States District Courts ( USDC ). The DCUS are the constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause. If this is not true please state your objection 36 The Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson (Eighth Cir Court) cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. The OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; begin reading at section 7(e). If this is not true please state your objection 37. The United States District Court, as such, appears to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 38. Under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. If this is not true please state your objection 39. The Court officials, D.O.J. and IRS are aware of my declaration of my legal notice and demand stating that the Accused can only be tried in an Article III Court (Constitutional Court) and tried by a jury who exercises the authority to hear and decide questions of both law and fact. If you believe otherwise, substantiate and prove your position by the facts and the law under penalty of perjury. 40. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay? If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury 41. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the district Courts of the United

7 States the Article III constitutional courts are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 42. The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920). This is conflict of interest. If this is not true please state your objection 43. The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra. If this is not true please state your objection 44. In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS. If this is not true please state your objection 45. In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This was a statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court - the highest Court in the land. If this is not true please state your objection 46. Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as employees of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 47. As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to this Act: See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) If this is not true please state your objection 48. What is The Kickback Racket, and where can you find evidence of its existence? The evidence of this kickback racket was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual ( IRM ) the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees. Subsequently, a lawful request, submitted under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the

8 Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these awards because most of them were paid in cash!. If this is not true please state your objection 49. Has anyone in this proceeding been involved in receiving, promising or distribution of any cash rewards? Please state specifically under penalty of perjury. 50. Could the IRS and the Agents EXPLAIN why an application addressed to FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. Please answer and explain Subtitle A by the IRS agent and the D.O.J. Agents? 51. It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an agency as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). It should instead be addressed to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA. This is the format for foreign addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221. If this is not true please state your objection 52. Is the Court and its officials and the D.O.J. and its agents involved in or aware that James Timothy Turner is being used as chattel whereby prisoners are used for profit? If they are not who is responsible for issuing these bonds in violation of the 13 Amendment, forced Peonage Act and Civil and Constitutional violations? If this is not true please state your objection 53. This is a notice that the United States District Court has filed and used my name as surety without my permission; this is fraud and violation of my copy righted name that was recorded at the Secretary of State Alabama. This is a crime that is using prisoners for profit. This is being done on every court case across this country and the prisoners are used for chattel. Included is a copy of Fidelity Investment, case # 1:12 CR See: Exhibit (A) If this is not true please state your objection 54. The Court and its officers, D.O.J. and its agents, have been notified that Title 18 has not passed the Quorum Clause of the Constitution; this was verified by the documents that were presented into the record. The Clerks of the House and Clerk of Senate have verified that Title 18 has never passed the quorum clause of the Constitution; therefore this nullifies Title 21 and Title 26. Title 18 includes the only authorization to allow federal courts jurisdiction in any criminal case, whether Title 18, Title 21, or Title 26, See: 18 USC Section It was not registered in the Federal Registry and the National Archives and therefore it is not law. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 55. Just recently the Department of Justice has admitted IN A LAW SUIT that Title 18,

9 (Public Law ) of the Criminal code was never passed by the 80 th Congress in a case that was filed by the Spire Law Group. This law firm has filed a Verified proof of claim in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on August 27, The D.O.J. and its agents in that case have refused to answer and have therefore by their silence have agreed to the Summary judgment that was presented in that case. Title 18 includes the only authorization to allow federal courts jurisdiction in any criminal cases, whether Title 18, Title 21, or Title 26, see 18 U.S.C. Section See also US v. Tweel 550f.2d 297,299 and US v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021, 1032 and Carmine v. Bowen, 64A If this is not true please state your objection 56. In Title 28 Section, 132 Codes and 28 Section 1331 et seq the United States District Courts have jurisdiction in only (CIVIL CASES ONLY) not criminal but most all federal prisoners are tried in a jurisdiction that has no authority to hear criminal cases. If this is not true please state your objection 57. Many people are being incarcerated every day for Internal Revenue crimes when the IRS is not an agency of the United States Government. Therefore the federal courts by admission through the government s failure to answer, have agreed and admitted that no prior statue gives the federal courts jurisdiction and that the indictment is void on any federal criminal cases. The Government has admitted that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a CORPORATION and in other words a FICTION, and pursuant to the Administration Procedures Act (APA), the government was required to answer but has therefore agreed to the Summary Judgment and their silence can only be equated with fraud. See: U.S. vs. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (1970). If this Court, Department of Justice and the IRS Agent refuse to answer any and all of these interrogatories presented in this Judicial Notice, their silence will be equated to FRAUD. If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. 58. This is a direct complaint to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S.D.C. Alabama Court, Department of Justice representatives Sandra, J Stewart, Justin Gelfand, Gary M. Borden and IRS Agent Susan Tyson and Department of Justice Eric Holder. In a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. See: RYDER vs. UNITED STATES, 115 SCt. 2031,132 L. Ed 136, 515 U.S I am required to initiate a direct challenge to authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government officer or agent, prior to the finality of any proceedings in order to avoid implications of defacto officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages. You are therefore demanded to prove that the IRS IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY and Sandra Tyson is a government officer or agent as the Department of Justice has stated on the record in the indictment of the Accused. The Department of Justice has incriminated themselves in working in collusion, conspiracy and perjury with the IRS. This is to notify the court that in the United States Attorney Manual (USAM) we find that the IRS and the must work together in harmony reads in part; The Federal Tax Enforcement Program is designed to protect the public interest in preserving the integrity of this nation s self-assessment tax system the FTEP is designed to have the broadest possible impact on compliance attitudes by emphasizing balance

10 enforcement not only with respect to the types of violations prosecuted but also the geographic location and economic and vocational status However, the tax enforcement program can only effectively if the IRS, Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorneys work in harmony (emphasis added). If this is not true please state your objection specifically under the penalty of perjury. This self-incriminating documentation is undeniable in any court of law. The Department of Justice is knowingly and willingly working WITH AN AGENCY THAT IS NOT AN AGENCY OF THE United States Government. Therefore the accused has been arrested and incarcerated on false charges and all parties have agreed to the stipulated damages that were set forth in my Legal Notice and Demand. The United States District Court, and the D.O.J. have engaged in denying and ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the beginning of this case. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it COOPER vs. AARON, 358 U.S. 1(1958): P.18. THESE ARE THE STATUTUES, RULES AND REGULATIONS THEY HAVE SWORE TO BEFORE THEY ENTERED INTO THEIR PUBLIC SERVICE TO WE THE PEOPLE BY THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE. Wherefore James Timothy Turner, demands this case be dismissed and Complainant released from incarceration forthwith on the evidence submitted and Pray for Damages settled in the amount that the committee awards as just and fair compensation for the damages. And, that my unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are restored! NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT Dated January 29, 2013 Respectfully Submitted James Timothy Turner Secured Party Creditor UCC1-308 EXHIBIT: 1. Copy of Fidelity Investment Surety Bonds, case # 1:12 CR-00169, See: Exhibit (A) CC: United States House and Senate, Judiciary United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts U.S. Military Provost Marshal U.S. Department of Justice Officials Named IRS Agent Susan Ofc Address Supreme Court of Alabama Chief Justice Department of Justice Eric Holder Registered Mail R US