As Maximus said before the battle, "Unleash Hell!"

From: "Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd" ralph@jusbelli.com

Attachments:

Interlocutory Appeal on IRS in 5th Circuit sani/redacted Government Answer Government Motion for Sanctions 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), 26 CFR § 601.101 and 601.702(a), ect. Included for new subscribers to these lists.

The government responses are in pdf and the original interlocutory is rtf. I am sharing this research, which is part of the proprietary injunction material that I use. The detailed part of the books and records is redacted.

As you will note the government does not address any of the issues, but instead files a motion to sanction. The government uses the word taxpayer over 70 times and this isn't even the issue of law before the 5th circuit.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1), 26 CFR § 601.101, and 26 CFR § 601.702(a) are not even mentioned in the government answer. These sections are instant death in exposing the acts of treason and domestic terrorism by the IRS and is agents/officers.

In the sanctions, the government wants to sanction us for "substantive regulations"? These are public records - 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) and the substantive regulations mentioned in 26 CFR § 702d(a) and the government wants to sanction us?

UNBELIEVABLE!

Then the government(sic) files a motion to sanction that allows us to pound on them in a rebuttable. Personally if I was going to file an answer of lies not addressing the issues of law, I sure would not open the door for us to file in again unless we filed a motion to sanction and/or non response.

We are thinking of filing in a motion to sanction them.

As someone told me, this is an absolute contempt of Congress by the IRS - not that I don't hold their plenary actions in contempt, but he IRS isn't to use code sections alone - must use substantive regulations with statutory authority only.

To date the IRS will not even address the substantive regulations that they are mandated to use, or 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), 26 CFR § 601.101, 26 CFR § 601.702(a) or the waiver of sovereign immunity in 5 U.S.C. § 701-706.

I am really disappointed in the quality of the responses from the governemnt and the absolute lack of any real information, and lack of addressing the issues of law. This will be interesting to see what the 5th does with this one.

395 F.3d 463 - Schulz v. IRS - See Allen v. Wright internally for three requirements 504 U.S. 555 - for three elements to all civil/criminal 197 F.3d 938 for jurisdiction of 1331 and additional waiver of sovereign immunity to get an agency by short hairs and then never let go of the SOB's, remembering then you must also plead the statute and substantive regulation for the injury or improper process (705-706).

5 U.S.C. § 2104 - judges are supervised and not independent.

Remembering these USDC are not Courts of the United States and there is nothing to change their true colors - they are Roman Civil Law courts under the control of Congress, and supervised by the the Judicial Conference of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. § 2104 and read it very carefully.

Just a couple of quick notes on the real issues on the previous post. The government, which of course the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA isn't, is attempting to change the interlocutory (issues of law) from the IRS isn't following the unambiguous language of Congress on procedures and substantive regulations to us stipulating that that we want an Injunction under 7421.

We are here, to wit:

1. The jurisdiction is in 28 U.S.C. § 1331; then,

2. The only place in all of the USC that you can attach to an agency or agent for unlawful actions or not following the procedure mandated and the waiver of sovereign immunity for agency/agents/officers is in 5 U.S.C. § 701-706, then,

3. You must also plead the actual statute and substantive regulation or other unlawful actions that they IRS isn't following (706), i.e. the injury.

4. Injunctive relieve and mandates from Congress to the Court (Congress can't order the court to do anything, but in the administrative state they do) are in the 700 series and in particular 705 to grant an injunction.

The USA wants to change the issue to 7421 for injunctive relieve. If this is argued by us, then we have stipulated that we are taxpayers; and, that the IRS agency is following all of its' procedures; and, that the IRS agent is totally correct in all respects and they the issue is just the tax.

Remembering that in all criminal or civil cases there are three parts, to wit: 1. Injury 2. Legal relations (two parties involved) 3. Remedy (a court that has cognizance of the class of case to give a remedy).  In dealing with the US, you have to have a waiver of sovereign immunity in the area that Congress will sanction for suing the US.

I have attached one case that one demonstrates the 1331 and waiver of immunity.

Schulz case that clearly states the reason he didn't have an injury (Allen v. Wright) is that he didn't plead it correctly - the three items are in this case in one sentence, but please note I am not criticizing Schulz for fighting (good things came to light in his appeals); and, Another supreme court case on the three items for a court proceed in a criminal or civil issue.

Ralph