UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Washington, D.C.

David Lee; Buess Private Attorney General l22014 Delaware Township Road 184 Arlington, Ohio [45814] Rodney Dale; Class Private Attorney General P.O. BOX 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] Petitioners Vs. UNITED STATES dba Corporation JOHN SCHUMANN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 Franchise Corporation STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation LAW FIRM RICHARD CORDRAY AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286) 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Employee of Corporation REGINALD J. ROUTSON 300 South Main Street Findlay, Ohio 4584 Franchise Corporation STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA dba Corporation LAW FIRM ROY COOPER CASE #: 11-5083

9001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-9001 Employee of Corporation GASTON COUNTY dba Corporation TAX DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1578 Gastonia, NC 28053-1578 Defendants

OBJECTION: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES FRAUD UPON THE COURT

Reference: HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U. S. 238 (1944) 1. Upon the record, the Circuit Court of Appeals had the power and the duty to vacate its 1932 judgment and to give the District Court appropriate directions. P. 322 U. S. 247. (a) Even if Hazel failed to exercise due diligence to uncover the fraud, relief may not be denied on that ground alone, since public interests are involved. P. 322 U. S. 246.

NOW, comes, the Petitioners, David-Lee; Buess, and Rodney-Dale; Class, with this OBJECTION: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES FRAUD UPON THE COURT. 1. The Petitioners will refer the Circuit Court, and the Defendants, to Title 28, Judiciary & judicial procedures, section 1652; The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. 2. Congress created the Fair Debt Collection Procedure under Title 28 USC Judiciary & judicial procedures. Did the Defendants follow procedure or the Acts of Congress ? "NO." 3. Congress created Title 26 USC Internal Revenue Code and has defined meaning of words as to how they are to be used. Section 6331(a) and section 7343 is clearly written out. Did the Defendants follow procedures or the Acts of Congress as defined by Congress ? "NO" 4. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 10 ch. 48, 48 stat 112 (HJR 192) and remove all gold & silver from the people under the threat of imprisonment ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act of Congress ? "NO."

5. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 1 48 stat C 1 (HR 1491) placing all the people of this Nation under a Declared Emergency ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act of Congress ? "NO. 6. Did Congress pass into LAW, Public Law, 73-10, 40 stat 411(H.R. 4960) Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct 6 1917, and make this part of the Declared Emergency ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act of Congress ? "NO." 7. Did Congress not pass a Congressional mandate to allow the President of the United States to invoke a State of Emergency under Title 12, USC Bank & Banking, section 95b & 95a ? "YES." Have the Defendants disproved evidence of this Act of Congress? "NO." 8. Have the Defendants rebutted or disputed ANY of these acts of Congress as being of no force and effect ? Again, "No." 9. Can the Defendants provide proof that such "Acts" by Congress did NOT place the United States under Bankruptcy and insolvent ? "NO." 10. Have the Defendants disproved that this Nation is NOT operating under the National Emergency Power which is just one of the issues of the Petitioners' complaint ? "NO." 11. The Defendants are making fraudulent statements, stating that the Petitioners have challenged the authority of the government to collect taxes,

however, the Petitioners have merely asserted, and are backed up by Law, that the IRS' efforts and methods of collection constituted a fraud on the American people "NOT TAXES" 12. The above false and fraudulent statements in the Defendants' filed paperwork is misleading and twisted. The Petitioners' issue is HOW these taxes are/were collected. The Defendants violated Title 28 USC, Fair Debt Collection Procedures. The Defendants are, or should be, aware of the 1953 Hearing before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means on the Restructuring of the IRS (83rd Congress) in the House of Representatives. Here is a quote from Dwight E. Avis, February 3, 1953, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, as stated on the floor of Congress: There is just no such thing. That is where the structure differs. Let me point this out now. YOUR INCOME TAX IS 100 PERCENT VOLUNTARY TAX and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply...". This Congressional Hearing provided the facts of the intent of taxes. Can the Defendants disprove this Congressional Hearing quote from Mr. Avis as wrong ? "NO." 13. All of the Defendants are pointing their justification to Fed. R. App. 27 as being untimely to the Circuit of Appeals.

14. Again, a reference to HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V HARTFORDEMPIRE CO., 322 U. S. 238 (1944). This Case deals the Hartford Empire placing fraud on the court in order to get a favorable ruling against Hazel Atlas Glass. 15. The Defendants actions are no different. The Defendants filed for 11th Amendment dismissals after giving the District Court unauthorized jurisdiction. The Defendants did, with intent, set out to defraud the Court and the Petitioners. 16. Reference: clean hands doctrine. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. The Defendants have acted unethically and have acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint 17. The Petitioners point out that this seems to be the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the Defendants. What the Defendants are doing in this case, as in all cases, is that they are avoiding Administrative Procedures and Acts of Congress to get unlawful and fraudulent convictions of the American people. The Petitioners knowingly placed this case in Title 26 IRS, app. Rule 10, Administrative Court knowing that the Defendants probably could

not have allowed such an Administrative Hearing to happen. The Defendants did not fail in their SOP to deny the people a fair and unbiased court hearing. By this action it shows a Title 42 USC 1983 cause of action. 18. Fed. R. Civ. P .Rule 60(b) permits a court to "relieve a party ... from a final judgment for, inter alia, mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. (c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. 19. The Petitioners' justification under Rule 60 was FRAUD. As the Defendants point out when they filed under the 11th amendment the Court had no subject matter in law or equity. The Docket 24, Memorandum in Support, addressed that the District Court had no subject matter to make a Ruling. The Defendants are relying on a judgment of a Court that they pointed out DID come under the 11th amendment. 20. Reference: The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; --to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controver sies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. 21. Note 10: This above Clause has been affected by Amendment XI [Article XI] The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State 22. The 11th Amendment (or Article) was an Act of Congress to amend Article III and was ratified by the States into Law. The Defendants can not have this both ways. The Defendants can not bring claims under Article III and then deny the People a defense under the 11th Amendment has they have done. The People have been told by judges they can not use Statutes or the Constitution in court as their defense. However, the Petitioners picked up

on this when the Defendants filed into this case using the 11th Amendment argument against the Petitioners. The Defendants KNOW that the courts in this country are only administrative, and not judicial. The Defendants have knowingly defrauded the People/Petitioners in their claim on the liability of taxes. CONCLUSION The Defendants, being highly schooled in laws, by going to college to learn law, and practicing law for a number of years, can not claim they do not know the law as this is a paid profession. If the Defendants claim ignorance of the law then this is a procedural violation of the Defendants' own professional job description to which this Court has jurisdiction, and can address this matter. The Petitioners should not have had to file for a leave of court when fraud has been placed upon, not one, but two Courts by the Defendants on Administrative procedures violations, and violations of Acts of Congress. This is why the Petitioners filed into an Administrative Court to start with. It was to address these procedural violations and violations of congressional acts. And, this is why the Petitioners have filed into the Circuit for a Petition for Review.

The Defendants, and attorneys, having full knowledge of the laws and of the Constitution, knowing full well that when the Defendants bring claims against the American people on tax issues or any other issue into the District Court of the United States or other Courts that that Court lacks subject matter under the 11th Amendment and the Defendants fail to disclosure this fact to the American people and their clinics. Now comes, yet, another issue: if the Defendants are trying to deny proper Administrative procedures, Acts of Congress, and all Congressional Reports of the intent of the public laws, and to how they are to be interpreted, and then infer that the Petitioner's previous arguments were frivolous, unintelligible, and incomprehensible, then the 64 Million dollar question is: what set of procedures, statutes, codes, rules and regulations are the Defendants invoking if it's not Acts of Congress ? ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO AMEND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

___________________________ David-Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184 Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 5796

__________________________ Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] 704 742 3123

PROOF OF SERVICE I, David Lee; Buess, and I, Rodney Dale; Class, come with this OBJECTION: NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES FRAUD UPON THE COURT. This filing being placed before the Clerk of Court of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT on this day of _____________ and month of_____________ in the year of our Lord 2011 AD. Service will be delivered by U.S.P.S. certified mail. ___________________________ David-Lee; Buess Private Attorney General 22014 Delaware Township Road 184 Arlington, Ohio [45814] 419 694 5796 _____________________________ Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General P. O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] 704 742 3123

CC: JOHN SCHUMANN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 Franchise Corporation STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286) 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Employee of Corporation ECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P. BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER 1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 GRADY L. BALENTINE NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF JUSTICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, N.C. 27699 GEORGE ARTHUR MCANDREWS ALEXANDRIA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 301 KING STREET, SUITE 1300 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314

JOHN SCHMANN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE APPELLATE SECTION, PO BOX 502 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 STATE OF OHIO dba Corporation AARON D. EPSTEIN (#0063286) 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 ECCLESTON AND WOLG, P.P. BALITMORE-WASHINTON LAW CENTER 1629 K STREET,N.W., SUITE 260 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 MELISSA TAYLOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPT OF JUSTICE 9001 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, N.C. 27699

GEORGE ARTHUR MC ANDREWS ALEXANDRIA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 301 KING STREET, SUITE 1300 ALEXANDRIA,VA 22314

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 333 CONSTITUTION AVE N.W. ROOM 5523 Washington, D.C. 20001-2866