Noll v. Peterson et al

Filing 27

ORDER FINDING CLIFFORD L. NOLL A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND IMPOSING PRE-FILING RESTRICTIONS granting 10 Motion to Deem Clifford L. Noll a Vexatious Litigant and for Entry of Pre-Filing Order. Plaintiff, Clifford L. Noll, is PROHIBITED from filing any civil pleadings in this Court challenging the assessment or collection of federal income taxes (either filed against the United States or against federal officers) unless and until those pleadings have been reviewed by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge for possible legal merit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 prior to being electronically filed and served, and that the United States, or individual defendants sued in their official or individual capacities, must only respond to s uch pleadings when ordered to by this Court.Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Fremming Nielsen. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/17/2015: # 1 Appendix 1, 92-cv-282, # 2 Appendix 2, 93-cv-100, # 3 Appendix 3, 94-cv-521, # 4 Appendix 4, 96-cv-280 part 1 of 3, # 5 Appendix 4, 96-cv-280-1 part 2 of 3, # 6 Appendix 4, 96-cv-280 part 3 of 3, # 7 Appendix 5, 97-c v-145 part 1 of 3, # 8 Appendix 5, 97-cv-145 part 2 of 3, # 9 Appendix 5, 97-cv-145 part 3 of 3, # 10 Appendix 6, 99-cv-590, # 11 Appendix 7, 01-cv-2, # 12 Appendix 8, 02-cv-87, # 13 Appendix 9, 02-cv-484, # 14 Appendix 10, 03-cv-34, # 15 Appendix 11, 12-cv-138) (cjs). Modified on 9/17/2015 to reflect electronic notice and mailing regenerated for attached Appendices (cjs).

Appendix 5
Noll v. United States, 3:97-CV-145-EJL (D. Idaho)

..: ...

r

~

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
'l! d DISTRICT OF IDAHO
,r.:' e at
. tr.
I L1

·,a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CLIFFORD L. NOLL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MAR 311998

I

CLERK,U.S~TCOURY

By--=--/.~Deputy

Case No. CV97-0145-N-EJL

ORDER

By Sunny Trumbull
on Jul 24, 2015 8:23 am

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's June 6, 1997, Motion to Dismiss
(Docket No. 5) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Proceed (Docket No. 11) on August 6,
1997.
Having completed a careful review of the above-entitled action and otherwise being fully
advised, the Court enters the following Order: Due to the fact that Plaintiff failed to indicate any
statutory scheme or regulation waiving sovereign immunity, thereby failing to confer subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court hereby orders that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5)
be granted and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed (Docket No. 11) be denied. Additionally, Plaintiff's
Complaint (Docket No. 1) is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

ORDER - 1

001

\~

'

( '·

I.
BACKGROUND FACTS

On April 10, 1997, Plaintiff filed the instant action naming the United States as defendant.
This action is one of numerous suits brought by the Plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of
the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) authority to assess federal income taxes and the manner in
which such taxes are collected.1 Plaintiff argues that in 1988 IRS agents erroneously asserted that
he should have filed 1040 tax returns for the years 1976 thru 1984. Operating on the premise that
he did not engage in activities subject to taxation, Plaintiff was reticent to file the delinquent
returns.
Apparently, the IRS informed Plaintiff that if he maintained his position of refusing to file
the delinquent returns, such returns would be filed on his behalf by IRS agents. Eventually, on or
about May 8 and November 10 in 198 9, taxes were assessed against Plaintiff and lien notices were
subsequently filed in Kootenai County. The IRS informed Plaintiff that he owed approximately
$137,000.00 for income tax deriving from various profits and gains received during the disputed
time period. Plaintiff's wife was also assessed as owing $57,641.00 in delinquent taxes.
Among other things, Plaintiff asserts that the IRS's assessment of income tax with regards
to his personal financial ventures, violates Article 1 Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States
Constitution and that money received from labor or personal contracts is an inalienable right, not
a governmental privilege. In keeping with this constitutional claim, Plaintiff maintains that in the
absence of a federal privilege, income tax can not be assessed against his personal financial

1

Plaintitf's last action Noll y. IRS, 96 CV 0280-N-EJL was dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
ORDER - 2

002

activities. Plaintiff also claims that in assessing and attempting to collect federal taxes, numerous
revenue agents embarked on a campaign of fraudulent, incompetent, coercive, and intimidating
behavior. Based on these perceived deprivations of constitutional rights, Plaintiff seeks in excess
of$18,000,000.00 for actual, compensatory, and punitive damages.

II.

MOTION TO DISMISS
A.

Standard of Review

When analyzing a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all allegations of
material fact contained in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Buckey v.

County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 999, 113 S.Ct.
599, 121 L.Ed.2d 536 (1992); Church of Scientology ofCa. v. Flynn, 744 F.2d 694, 696 (9th Cir.
1984). Dismissal is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief See generally. Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754
(9th Cir. 1994); Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1990); California Dump

Truck Owners Assoc. v. Associated General Contractors, etc., 562 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1977).
Thus, the issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether it is entitled to offer
evidence to support the claim. Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236, as cited in Cervantes v. City of San

Diego, 5 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court must also limit its review to the allegations of the
complaint when ruling upon such a motion. Williford v. People of the State of California, 3 52

ORDER -

3

003

F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1965); Zatkin v. Primuth, 551 F.Supp. 39 (S .D. Cal. 1982); Swensen v.

Murchison, 501 F.Supp. 509 (N.D. Cal. 1981).
B.

Failure to State a Claim

The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of the claim for relief by
addressing itself solely to the failure of the complaint to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit held that "in
dismissals for failure to state a claim, a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request
to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured
by the allegations of other facts." Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection

Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). While amendments are liberally permitted under
Fed. R Civ. P. 15(a), the district court may deny leave to amend when there has been an undue delay
in bringing the motion, and the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by the amendments. U.S.

v. PendOreillePublic UtilityDist. No.1, 28 F.3d 1544, 1552-53 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied. 514,
U.S. 1015, 115 S.Ct. 1356, 131 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995).
Generally, the Court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Branch v. Tunnel, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1219, 114 S.Ct. 2704, 129 L.Ed.2d 832 (1994). If materials outside
the pleadings are considered, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment and will be
governed by the provisions contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. When a court interprets a motion to
dismiss as one for summary judgment, it must inform the plaintiff, especially if the plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, that it is considering more than the pleadings and the plaintiff must be afforded
an opportunity to present all pertinent material in response. Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934
(9th Cir. 1996). However, if a district court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, it
ORDER - 4

004

"has no power to rule alternatively on the merits of a case." Wages v. Internal Revenue Service, 915
F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1096, 111 S.Ct. 986, 112 L.Ed.2d 1071
(1991)

C.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Pursuant to deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
the district court may receive evidence to resolve underlying factual disputes. Biotics Research Corp

v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit specifically determined that
'unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion can attack the substance of a complaint's
jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency, and in doing so rely on affidavits or any
other evidence properly before the court.' Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1996)
(quoting St. Clair v. City of Chino, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 993,

llO S.Ct. 541, 107 L.Ed.2d 539 {1989)), see also, Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 735 n.4, 67 S.Ct.
1009, 1011 n.4, 91 L.Ed. 1209 (1947) ("[W]hen a question of the District Court's jurisdiction is
raised, either by a party or by the court on its own motion, .. .the court may inquire, by affidavits or
otherwise, into the facts as they exist."). The consideration of such evidence does not convert the
motion into one for summary judgment. Biotics Research Corp v. Heckler, 710 F.2d at 1379.
However, such jurisdictional fact-finding is inappropriate where jurisdiction and substantive issues
are "'so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues
going to the merits' of an action." Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enterprises, Inc., 711 F.2d
138 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1979)).

ORDER - 5

005

Ill.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
The United States, as a sovereign, may not be sued for damages without its prior consent, and
the terms of consent define the district court's jurisdiction to hear the suit. United States v. Testan,
424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976), see also, Hutchinson v. United States, 667
F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, the bar of sovereign immunity extends to United States
agents and officers where they are sued in their official capacity for their actions within the scope of
their employment. Hutchinson v. United States, 667 F.2d at 1327. The Supreme Court specifically
determined that "[w ]here a suit has not been consented to by the United States, dismissal of the action
is required." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 399. The existence of express Congressional
consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct.
2961, 2965, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983). As such, an action cannot be maintained against the United
States unless it is brought in compliance with a specific statute under which the United States
consents to suit. Testan, 424 U.S. at 399.
A waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied, but must be "unequivocally expressed"
and strictly construed in favor of the United States. United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 877
(9th Cir. 1989),

see also, United States v. Nordic Village,

503 U.S. 30, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1014-15,

117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992). Absent an express waiver of sovereign immunity, there is no right to money
damages in a suit against the United States. Testan, 424 U.S. at 400. Plaintiffbears the burden of
showing a waiver of sovereign immunity. Baker v. United States, 817 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987),
cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1204, 108 S.Ct. 2845, 101 L.Ed.2d 882 (1988); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 765

ORDER -

6

006

F.2d 1455, 1458-1459 (9th Cir. 1985), see also, Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.
1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958, 104 S.Ct. 2168, 80 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984).

A.

Statutory Waiver

Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 and 1343 (3) and (4). These are general
jurisdiction statutes and cannot be construed as constituting a waiver of the government's sovereign
immunity. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 765 F.2d at 1458. The Ninth Circuit specifically determined that
"[a] mere assertion that general jurisdiction statutes apply does not suffice to confer jurisdiction
when ... the government did not waive its immunity." Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 532, 539 n.
5 (9th Cir. 1992), see also, Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1443-44 (lOth Cir. 1990).

As such, these sections do not expressly waive sovereign immunity nor do they confer jurisdiction.
Plaintiff seeks to establish waiver and jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1346(a)(l). Section
1346(a)(l) ofTitle 28 provides a specific grant of jurisdiction to federal district courts over actions
for the refund of any internal revenue tax allegedly , erroneously or illegally assessed or collected.
~.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(l) (1997). Internal Revenue Code section 7422 grants a waiver of

sovereign immunity to permit jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(l).

~'

26 U.S.C. § 7422(a)

(1977). Nevertheless, as a prerequisite to jurisdiction under section 1346(a)(l), the taxpayer must:
(1) make full payment of taxes assessed, and (2) file an administrative claim for a refund which the
IRS rejects or does not act upon within six months. 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1) (1997); Thomas v.

United States, 755 F.2d 728, 729 (9th Cir. 1985).
Throughout his briefs, Plaintiff made it abundantly clear that this suit is not about a tax refund,
but instead relates to actual damages arising from the collection of delinquent taxes and subsequent
lien filing.

As such, the relief Plaintiff seeks does not fall within the refund scope of section

ORDER -

7

007

( '·

13 46(a)( 1), thus negating any claim of waiver thereby depriving the Court of jurisdiction. In any
event, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff asserted tax recovery under section 1346(a)(1), he still
failed to offer facts demonstrating that he met the full payment and filing prerequisites. Since Plaintiff
failed to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies or full payment of the tax assessments,
any refund claim is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Thus, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under section 1346(a)(1).
Plaintiff also argues waiver and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2410. Section
2201 grants a district court with jurisdiction over cases involving declaratory relief ~, 28 U.S. C.

§ 2201(a) (1997). However, the statute provides for a specific exemption for cases "with respect to
Federal taxes". Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d at 536-37; E.J. Friedman Co., Inc. v. United

States, 6 F.3d 1355, 1358-5? (9th Cir. 1993); 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Due to the fact that the case at
bar involves federal taxes, section 2201 cannot serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity. Hughes,
953 F.2d at 536-37. Consequently, the Court cannot assert jurisdiction under section 2201.
Section 2410 provides that the United States may be named as a party:
[I]n any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any State court
having jurisdiction of the subject matter-- ( 1) to quiet title to, (2) to
foreclose a mortgage or other lien upon, (3) to partition, (4) to condemn,
or (5) of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader with respect to, real
or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage
or other lien.
28 U .S.C. § 2410 (a) (1997).

This section waives sovereign immunity and vests jurisdiction for

matters falling within the scope of the statute. Hughes, at 538. The Ninth Circuit strictly limits the
reach and application of section 2410(a). Id. at 538. Specifically, a taxpayer cannot use section
2410 to collaterally attack the merits of an assessment. Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir.

ORDER - 8

008

1990). Furthennore, if the government sells an encumbered property prior to commencement of an
action and no longer claims an interest in the property, section 2410 jurisdiction no longer applies.

Hughes, at 538.
A review of the record reveals that Plaintiff is not seeking any property relief within the scope
of section 2410. Rather, Plaintiff is seeking actual, compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
deprivation of constitutional rights by Defendant's agents. Whatever limited jurisdiction section
2410 may provide, "does not extend to an omnibus challenge to the authority of the Internal
Revenue service to function." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1443, (lOth Cir. 1990).
Thus, Plaintiff's action is not cognizable-under section 2410. Accordingly, due to the fact that
Plaintifffailed to state a section 2410 cause of action, the United States did not waive its sovereign
immunity to suit and as such, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's complaints under
section 2410.
Finally, Plaintiff claims damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Section 1983 permits civil actions
for constitution deprivations against "persons acting 'under color of state law' and not to persons
acting pursuant to federal law." Chatman v. Hernandez, 805 F.2d 453, 455 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting
i

Cervoni v. Secretary of H.E. W., 581 F.2d 1010, 1019 (1st Cir. 1978)). Generally, section 1983
actions cannot be maintained against either the United States or its officials. Stonecipher v. Bray, 653
F.2d 398, 401 (9th Cir. 1981). However, an exception may transpire when federal agents act in
conspiracy with state officials under color of state law. Stonecipher v. Bray, 653 F.2d at 401, ~

.also, Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct.
928, 93 L.Ed.2d 979.

ORDER -

9

009

-,

Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by federal agents
acting under the scope of federal law. The Ninth Circuit specifically determined that such claims are
"beyond the scope of Section 1983." Chatman v. Hernandez, 805 F.2d at 455 . Additionally,
Plaintiff fails to allege any conspiracy between state and federal actors. As such, Plaintiff does not
have a cause of action against the United States under section 1983, because the Defendant is a
federal entity and the IRS agents did not act under the color of state law. Thus, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain Plaintifr s complaints under section 1983.
B.

Bivens Doctrine

Plaintiff alternatively asserts waiver and jurisdiction under the Bivens doctrine.

~,

Bivens

v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Under the Supreme
Court's Bivens decision, a person can be held liable under color of federal law for depriving another
of a constitutional right. Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S . at 397. However, as previously
discussed, suits against United States employees in their official capacities also requires a waiver of
sovereign immunity. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d at 1458. -Moreover, generalized allegations of
constitutional violations are insufficient to rebut an assertion of immunity. Maraziti v. First Interstate

Bank, 953 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has never "recognized a constitutional
violation arising from the collection of taxes." Wages v. Internal Revenue Service, 915 F.2d at 1235.
Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit specifically held that the alternative remedies provided by Congress,
"particularly the right to sue the government for a refund of taxes improperly collected," foreclose
a Bivens action for money damages arising from the collection oftaxes. Wages, 915 F.2d at 1235.
No constitutional violation has ever been recognized for ministerial actions taken in the course of the

ORDER - 10

010

collection of taxes. 915 F .2d at 123 5.

Moreover, statutory provisions enabling a taxpayer to

challenge assessments satisfy the dictates of due process. ld. at 123 5 (citation omitted).
Plaintiff claims money damages for fraudulent, incompetent, coercive and intimidating
behavior on behalf of several IRS agents, allegedly resulting in the violation of various constitutional
rights. However, Plaintiff failed to name any specific IRS agent as a party to the suit at bar. Even
assuming arguendo that individual agents were named, sovereign immunity would still preclude
PlaintifP s action. Sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming individual officers and
employees of the United States as defendants, Gilbert, 756 F.2d at 1458. Moreover, as discussed
previously, alternative statutory remedies for the recovery of improperly collected taxes are available
to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintitr s damage claims are premised on the violation of constitutional
rights. Thus, PlaintifP s Bivens action for damages arising from improperly collected taxes is
foreclosed. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review PlaintifP s claim under a Bivens type
action.
Plaintiff failed to cite any statute or regulation which would serve to waive the government's
sovereign immunity, as applied to the facts at bar. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to assert that the IRS
agents involved acted under anything but the color of federal law. Therefore, subject matter
jurisdiction is not conferred and as such, the Court is foreclosed from reviewing the merits of
PlaintifP s claims.

ORDER - 11

011

IV.
REVIEW OF MOTIONS
Defendant requests that this Court grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed a motion to
proceed. Since this Court determined that Plaintiff failed to provide a statute or regulation conferring
jurisdiction, the merits of Plaintiffs claim cannot be addressed. As such, Defendant is entitled to
dismissal of Plaintiffs action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to proceed is denied and Plaintiffs
complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

v.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Court having been fully informed in the premises,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED.
2) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed (Docket No. 11) is DENIED.
3) Plaintiff's Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice.
,.....

DATED this

31

$Jday ofMarch, 1998.

ORDER - 12

012

MAILING CERTIFICATE

ld

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed this
day of
~~
, 19JJ!:._, to the following parties:

CLIFFORD L. NOLL
715 N. 13th ST.
COEUR D'ALENE ID 83814
RICHARD R. WARD
U.S. DEPT. OF ruSTICE
P.O. BOX638
BEN FRANKLIN STATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044-0683

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
United States District Court

byD~

ORDER - 13

013

·.
c,

/

Clifford L. Noll
71"5 N. 13th St.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814
( 208) 765-4562
··,

By Sunny Trumbull
on Jul 24, 2015 8:24 am

97 f\PR I 0 AH !Q: 00
Ri:-co

y
r bF~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICTc P:Wr;:·:;-;-:r:nA' r-Tu•57t t=:
·
'""' . .m:nr . u 1,,, _

CLERK

CLIFFORD L. NOLL

IDAHO

plaintiff

vs.

CIVIL CASE NO.
COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES
defendant.

CJV 9 7 - 0 14 5 - N... EJU

COMES NOW the plaintiff for his complaint in the above
captioned action, alleging as follows:

This civil action is seeking judgment, relief, and damages
to defend and protect the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States. This court has
jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Title 28 USC
§§ 1 3 31 , 1 3 4 3 ( 3) and ( 4) , 1 3 4 6 (a) ( 1 ) , 2 2 01 , and 2 41 0.
This action is allowed by Title 42 §1983.

The nature of the cause of action is that Internal Revenue
Service agents have assessed, attempted to collect, and
have collected a NON-APPORTIONED, DIRECT TAX upon the
personal property of the plaintiff in violation of Article
1, Section 9, clause 4, of the Constitution of the United
States. The IRS has taken it upon themselves to use
collection techniques which have not been promulgated
by the Secretary of the Treasury or approved by the U.S.
Congress. These techniques include, but are not limited

014

\.

r
·-

<"',

to fraud, coercion, extortion, collusion, filing false
\

tax returns, filing unlawful liens, unlawfully
confiscating personal and real estate property.

TO WIT: In 1988, IRS agents claimed that I should have
filed 1040 Tax returns for the years 1984, 1983, 1982,
1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, and 1976. That said that
I had engaged in activities that, by the laws of the
United States carried upon them a Federal Excise Tax.
I told them that I had not engaged in any such privileged
activities. They sent me a letter stating that they had
determined that I had, but offered no

015

..
36

documentation or proof. When I complained, they said the burden of proof was upon

37

me. In essence, they said that I was guilty until I could prove myself innocent. They

38

informed me that agent John Peterson was to investigate and file tax returns for me if I

39

continued to refuse to waive rights and be a witness against myself. They insinuated

40

that 1 was a "tax protester" and that they were "going to get me". I am not a tax

41

protester! 1 told them that I was not a "person required to file", and therefore, was not

42

under their jurisdiction. Some time later I was informed that I owed approximately

43

$137,000.00 for income tax on profit or gain that I had supposedly received. Again

44

they offered no documentation to show that I had been involved in any kind of taxable

45

activity. They also informed me that my wife, Susan J. Noll, owed approximately

46

$57,641.00 in taxes for being a "housewife". Again, they offered no documentation to

47

show that the laws of the United States Tax code made being a housewife a taxable

48

activity. The agents fraudulently claim that the terms "1 040 form" and "income tax" are

49

the same thing and can be used interchangeably. IRS Code makes the distinction that

50

a "1040 form" is used for Federal Employees Wage Tax and for an excise tax upon the

51

wages of officers of U.S. corporations. "Income Tax" is an excise tax on profit or gain

52

from companies formed under U.S. laws of incorporation and therefore are subject to

53

Federal regulation. Agents also use the word "person" and "taxpayer" interchangeably

54

although Internal Revenue Laws make the distinction that only certain "persons" are

55

required to file. Agents use the term "income" and "compensation" interchangeably.

56

The Internal Revenue laws and the Federal Courts makes the distinction that "income"

57

is profit or gain from a corporate activity; "compensation" is an equal exchange and not

016
2

58

taxable. They said if we could not prove that we had not received income, they would

59

fabricate a claim that we would have to disprove. They said that if we did not disprove

60

their claim, they would assess a tax and file Federal Liens against our property. We

61

asked how someone would prove that they did not receive hundreds of thousands of

62

dollars; they responded, .. that is your problem! .. Agents fraudulently claim that there

63

are Federal Tax laws which allow them to assess and collect a direct tax upon all

64

compensation for labor earned by natural born sovereign citizens residing within the 50

65

states. 1 have continually asked, arid am now demanding that they state for the court

66

record, specifically what law is it? When was it passed into law by the congress of the

67

United States? When did the Secretary of the Treasury promulgate the use of sections

68

of Title 26 USC or Title 27 USC into law to be used for the collection of such taxes?

69

SEE:

70
71

The agents fraudulently insinuate that the 16th Amendment gave them unlimited power

72

as professional auditing agents for the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Internal Revenue

73

Service, and gives whatever they .. say .. the power of law. The Supreme Court has ruled

74

in the Brushaber Case that the 16th Amendment did not give unlimited power. In fact,

75

the Court said that its purpose was ..... drawn with the object of maintaining the

76

limitations of the Constitution .....

77
78

I think, at this point, it is important to note that the IRS sends out a notice that taxpayers

79

are required to keep records for 3 years for auditing purposes. In this case the agents

80

said, in essence, that .. we don't care if you are not a person required to file by law. We

017
3

81

don•t care that the statutory requirement is 3 years, we want records for 12 years. If you

82

don•t capitulate, we are going to use the power of the IRS to put the Screws to you

83

lsn•t that tactic extortion? Black•s Law Dictionary describes ••extortion~~ as The

84

obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened

85

force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 871 et seq.;

86

sect. 1951. It further states

87

or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold

88

testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to

89

another•s legal claim or defense; ...

90

SEE BOTHKE v FLOUR ENGINEERS., 713, F.2d 1405 (1983). In this case the U.S.

91

Court of Appeals ruled that if a taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that there has been

92

an error in the assessment and the agent continues to levy action without first

93

determining if the taxpayer•s argument has merit, such agent losses his immunity from

94

suit.

11

11
•

11

11
...

(2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense;•• or

11
...

(4) take

action.~~

or

11
...

(6)

11

95
96

As the facts in this case are brought out in court, it will become obvious that the agents

97

never had any facts or documents that indicated that the plaintiff was ever involved in

98

any activity that would have required him to file by law. It will become obvious that the

99

agents had no documentation to support the figures they claimed as

~~taxable income~~.

100

It will become obvious that the agents never filed a return that was signed under the

101

penalty of perjury to which valid assessments and liens could be applied as required by

102

law. It will become obvious that the liens were never valid. It will become obvious that

103

agents insinuate that their actions are lawful but will not state specifically what law they

018
4

(

·

104

are referring to. It will become obvious that the unlawful actions of the agents has

105

ruined the business in which the plaintiff was engaged and is continuing to wreak

106

financial havoc upon the plaintiff form 1989 to the present. It will become obvious that

107

the statute for collections was up in 1994 and 1995. It will become obvious that the IRS

108

commissioners and agents named in this suit have committed extortion in order to

109

deceive the plaintiff to believing that he must surrender his property to the Federal

11 o

Government. SEE " Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface,

111

many Citizens, because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their

112

rights, due to ignorance." U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187. It is very important to

113

realize that, according to the Supreme Court, " Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not

114

only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient

115

awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences." Brady v. U.S. 379 US

116

742 at 748 (1970).

117
118

Agent John Peterson's investigation did not reveal that the plaintiff had worked for the

119

Federal Government. It did not reveal that the plaintiff had received a wages as an

120

officer of a U.S. corporation. It did not reveal that the plaintiff had been involved in any

121

Federally regulated activity. It did not reveal that the plaintiff had received profit or gain

122

from investments. Because the investigation revealed no activity upon which a tax

123

could be assessed, the agents could not file a 1040 form for the plaintiff. They

124

apparently fabricated numbers and entered them into the computer because from then

125

on , I received computer generated demands for payment. Each agent that I complained

019
5

r
-126

to that the figures were false and unsubstantiated seemed to believe what the computer

127

was generating.

128
129

Agent BETTY YOUNG, an assessment officer, was required to check all assessments

130

before they are filed to insure the accuracy of the return and supporting documents

131

before making a claim for the United States. The position of assessment officers are a

132

safety measure to prevent rogue agents from using the machinery of government to

133

deny Citizens due process under the law. Their position is also to protect the Federal

134

government from suit because of the poor performance of agents, rogue agents, or

135

conspiracy between agents within the Internal Revenue Service. Instead of demanding

136

the necessary documentation that must be filed in the office of the Secretary to make

137

the assessment and lien valid, she went along with the claims in the computer and filed

138

liens without the required supporting information. An unsigned letter from the IRS in

139

response to Freedom of Information Act request, dated June 20, 1996, states that there

140

are no documents at the office of the Secretary as required by 26 CFR 6201-1. It also

141

states that "... there are no documents prepared pursuant to IRC sect. 6065". IRC 6065

142

requires all returns, etc. to be signed under penalty of perjury.

143
144

Agent JAY HAMMER is a Freedom Of Information Act disclosure officer for the Internal

145

Revenue Service. When the plaintiff requested the records and supporting documents

146

which are required to be kept in the office of the Secretary, the agent required $119.00

147

for locating and copying the documentation that pertained specifically to the plaintiff.

148

The money was sent. When agent Hammer realized that the records and

020
6

~-

149

documentation required by law did not exist, he sent documents which did not name or

150

identify the plaintiff, the kind of tax assessed, or the amount which must correlate with

151

the amount shown on the return as per the request. When the plaintiff complained that

152

the information the agency sent was not what was requested and paid for, the agency

153

wanted another $116.00 to provide it. When the plaintiff sent a copy of the money order

154

as proof that he had already paid for said information, Jay Hammer sent another batch

155

of .. fluff" instead of admitting that the agency did not possess the required documents to

156

make the assessments and liens valid. When the plaintiff filed suit in Federal court,

157

complaining of the agency's lack of jurisdiction and lack of necessary documentation,

158

Jay Hammer perjured himself to cover the scam. 26 CFR sect. 301.6203-1.--.. The

159

district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more

160

assessment officers. The assessment shall be made by an officer signing the summary

161

record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide;

162

Identification of the taxpayer (Clifford L. Noll, SS # 203-36-9997), the character of the

163

liability assessed (corporate income tax, Federal Employee Tax, alcohol- tobacco-

164

firearms Tax, etc.), the taxable period (1989, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979,

165

1978, 1977, and 1986.), if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount

166

of the assessment shall, in the case of the tax shown on the return by the taxpayer, be

167

the amount so shown (1976 ... $18,002.06; 1977 ... $8,974.83; 1978... $16,764.91;

168

1979 ... $24,417.39; 1980... $5, 102.41; 1981 ... $11 ,588.14; 1982 ... $11 ,256.06;

169

1983 ... $1 0,833.68; 1984... $18,977.12). For an assessment and corresponding tax liens

170

to be valid all of the above information must be filed in the office of the Secretary on

021
7

!"'··

171

11/10/88 (date of assessment listed on the tax liens that were filed). The purpose of

172

requiring all of this information to be filed is to insure that only taxes that are due under

173

the laws of the United States are claimed . This protects the taxpayer from unjust

174

claims and the agents anfa'gency from suit.

175
176

If the required supporting documents had been filed, red flags would have shown all

177

over. In 1988, the statute for collections of taxes was limited to 6 years. That would

178

make 1982 the furthest year back that taxes could be assessed and liened upon. [

179

NOTE: Agents still refuse to file a Form 688z, Release of Federal Tax Lien, even

180

though the statute for collection was up in 1994.] It is obvious, in the case of the

181

plaintiff, that agents were filing action beyond what the statute allowed. It would have

182

also been obvious that the returns were not signed under penalty of perjury. 26 CFR

183

sect. 6065 states "... Return(s), declaration(s), statement(s) , or other document(s)

184

required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations

185

shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that is made under penalty of

186

perjury ... " Agents know that if they were to falsify information on documents then sign

187

under penalty of perjury that they can be sued personally for going outside the law and

188

possibly be imprisoned for committing perjury, extortion, and collusion. In cases where

189

an agent files a return based upon his numbers, it has become the tactic of choice to

190

file assessments and liens without signing the return under penalty of perjury. Without

191

a signature on a return it becomes difficult to try a specific agent for the crimes

192

committed against the taxpayer. Without a signature on the return, the return itself is

193

invalid.

022
8

··,

194
195

The above named Commissioners of Internal Revenue have neglected to properly train

196

and over see the actions of their agents. They are allowing agents to insinuate that

197

compensation earned by sovereign citizens laboring in unregulated industries should

198

be taxed as if they were Federal employees receiving taxable wages. A Citizens right to

199

labor in unrestricted industries is not a privilege granted by the Federal government

200

and therefore is not taxable under Article 1, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution of

201

the United States; .. No capitalization, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in

202

proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken ...

203

SEE ... A state [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a

204

right preserved by the Federal Constitution ... Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105,

205

at 113.

206

SEE ..... Every man has a right to the fruits of his own labo·r, as generally admitted; and

207

no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against

208

his will.. ... The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120

209

SEE .. The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a

210

Constitutional as well as a common law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits

211

of his own industry... 48 Am Jur 2d. Sect. 2 page 80

212
213

The Butchers' supreme Court decision expanded our unalienable right to pursue

214

happiness to include our right to pursue any lawful business that did not infringe upon

215

the rights of others. It also defined our .. labor .. as our most sacred .. property... Therefore

216

a tax on labor would be a Direct Tax on property. This would not include the wages

023
9

217

earned by Federal employees or officers of U. S. corporations because this

218

employment was created by the Federal government. Anything the Federal government

219

creates, it has the right to tax and control.

220

SEE .. Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of

221

Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the

222

right to pursue any business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal

223

rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to

224

give them their highest enjoyment...lt has been well said that, THE PROPERTY THAT

225

EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AND IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL

226

OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. .. to hinder his

227

enjoying ... in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain

228

violation of the most sacred property ... Butchers Union co. v Cresent City Co. 111 U.S.

229

746, at 756-757

230

SEE .. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-

231

partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of

232

property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor

233

and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property... COPPAGE

234

V KANSAS, 236 U.S .. 1, at 14.

235

SEE ..... the term [liberty]. .. denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also

236

the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of

237

life, to acquire useful knowledge , to marry, to establish a home and bring up children,

238

to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... The established

024
10

239

doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting

240

public interest, by legislative action ... " MEYER V NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400.

241
242

Gross income earned in the exercise of an unalienable right is exempted by

243

fundamental law and is free from tax. The Internal Revenue Code confirms that

244

compensation earned through the exercise of a Fundamental Right is not taxable.

245

SEE 1939, 26 CFR sect. 9.22 (b)(1) "Exemptions; exclusions from gross income.

246

Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) [i.e. compensation] are exempt from

247

tax and may be excluded from gross income ... (1) Those items of income which are,

248

under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal government."

249

SEE Treasury Decision, Internal Revenue Vol. 26 No. 3640, p.769 (1924): "Gross

250

income excludes the items of income specifically exempted by statute or fundamental

251

law, are free from tax."

252

SEE Title 26 (1939) Part II, Subtitle B Section 3.21-1: "Meaning of net income. The tax

253

imposed by Title 26 of the Act is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or

254

fundamental law, nor expenses incurred in the connection therewith, other than

255

interest, enter into the computation of net income ... "

256

SEE 11 Am . Jur. Constitutional Law Sect 328, p 1133, describes the "Fundamental

257

Principles" upon which the political institutions and social structure of America rest, is

258

that all men have certain Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are

259

unalienable, fundamental, and inherent. These are real Rights and not mere privileges

260

enjoyable only through grace ...Every man has a natural, fundamental right to the fruits

261

of his own industry." Therefore our Rights have the following attributes: (1) They are

025
11

262

"inalienable." (2) They are "Fundamental" and {3) they are "Inherent": Webster's

263

Dictionary defines those qualities as follows:

264

Inalienable: "Not transferable to another and not capable of being repudiated

265

[overturned or denied]."

266

Fundamental: "An essential part of the foundation. The primary source, a basic

267

principle, rule of law that serves as the background of a system."

268

Inherent: "Existing in someone as a permanent and inseparable element, quality or

269

attribute; innate:

270

Innate: "Existing in one from birth; inborn."

271

SEE" But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible to the

272

fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force the judicial body to

273

disregard it." YAKUS V U.S., 321 U.S. 414 pg. 468 {1944).

274
275

See " Thus in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes

276

of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be

277

governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes and the rule of uniformity

278

as to duties, imposts and excises." The decision further stated that the purpose of

279

apportionment of direct taxes by the Constitution was "equality for all under the law".

280

"...determining that, the classification of DIRECT was adopted for the purpose of

281

rendering it impossible for the government to burden, by taxation, accumulations of

282

property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment..." "Our

283

conclusions may, therefore, be summed up as follows:

026
12

~

I

284
285

indisputably direct taxes, taxes on rents or income of real estate are equally direct

286

I.

FIRST: We adhere to the opinion already announced, that taxes on real estate, being

taxes.

287

SECOND: We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property, or the income of

288

personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

289

THIRD: The tax imposed by sections twenty seven to thirty seven, inclusive, [relating to

290

non-apportioned direct taxes] of the Act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real

291

estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning the Constitution,

292

and therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to

293

representation, all those sections, consisting of one entire scheme of taxation are

294

necessarily invalid."

295

at 637 (1895)

296

SEE "Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment

297

of rights. Indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange."

298

KNOWLTON V MOORE, 178 U.S. 41.

299

SEE "A tax laid upon the happening of an event is distinguished from its tangible fruits,

300

as an indirect tax ... " TYLER V U.S., 497 at pg 502 (1930)

301

SEE "A tax levied upon property because of its ownership is a direct tax, whereas one

302

levied upon property because of its use is an excise, duty, or impost."

303

MANUFACTURES' TRUST CO. vs U.S., 32 F. Supp. 289.

POLLOCK V FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., 158, U.S. 601,

304
305

DUTIES and IMPOSTS: are importation and exportation taxes laid by the government.

027
13

r ·
·.

306

EXCISES: are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities

307

within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain [regulated] occupations and upon

308

corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of a

309

privilege." FLINT vs STONE TRACY CO., 220 US 107

310
311

The income tax that the Commissioners and IRS agents are required to collect can

312

ONLY be imposed upon the EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE. It may NOT be imposed

313

upon the EXERCISE OF A RIGHT! The plaintiff continues to assert that he DID NOT

314

involve himself in any exercise of a Federally granted privilege during the years in

315

question. Therefore, the agency lacked jurisdictional authority over him. If there is no

316

privilege being exercised, there is NO LIABILITY for the income tax.

317

SEE "Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other

318

than an income tax, but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege

319

unless it is first a privilege." [Taxation Key 53]. .. "The Right to receive income or

320

earnings is a right belonging to every person and the realization and receipt of income

321

is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." [Taxation Key 933] -JACK COLE CO. v

322

MACFARLAND, 337 S.W. 2d 453 Tenn .

323

SEE 26 R.C.L. Sect. 132 TAXATION "A Right common in every Citizen such as the

324

right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation

325

CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and

326

than permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money." -STEVENS

327

v STATE, 2 Ark., 291 . 35 Am Dec. 72: SPRING VAL. WATER WORKS v BARBER, 99

328

Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735 , 21 L.R.A. 416. Note: 57 L.R.A. 416

028
14

329

SEE .. The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of

330

existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter

331

powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are Natural

332

Rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed ... We bel ieve that the

333

conclusion is well justified that a tax laid directly upon the income of a property, real or

334

personal, may well be regarded as a tax upon the property which produces the

335

income ... -REDFIELD v FISHER, Oreg. Sup. Ct. 292 at 813, 817,819. (1930)

336

SEE .. Citizens under our Constitution and laws mean free inhabitants [not

337

subjects] ... Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges, to

338

enjoy to which no written law or statute is required. These are fundamental or natural

339

rights, recognized among all free people ... that the right to ... accept employment as a

340

laborer for hire as a fundamental right is inherent in every free citizen, and is

341

indisputable ... .. - UNITED STATES v MORRIS, 125 F. Rept. 325, 331.

342

SEE ..... The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation , is ... a 'personal' right,

343

whether the 'property' in question is a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In

344

fact a fundamental interdependence exists between the person's right to liberty and the

345

personal right to property. Neither could have meaning without the other ... LYNCH v

346

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., 405 U.S. 538.(1970)

347
348

It is relevant to note that, nowhere in the entire Internal Revenue Code or implementing

349

regulations, is "income" defined. The tax liability is based upon .. taxable income".

350

"Gross income.. is NOT "taxable income ... "Gross income, .. according to IRS agents is

351

anything of value that comes in, compensation, wages, salary, tips, benefits, barter

029
15

-,

352

exchanges, etc. minus statutory and Constitutional"exemptions and exclusions". In well

353

settled decisions the supreme Court has ruled that the actual meaning of the word

354

'l income" is "gain and profits" severed from capital. Therefore, remuneration or

355

compensation for labor (which is an equivalent exchange) earned by sovereign citizens

356

of the 50 states is not "income"! The most significant supreme Court decision to define

357

the word "income" was EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189. ".. .it becomes essential

358

to distinguish between what is and what not "income," according

359

to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it

360

may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution ,

361

from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, alone can be

362

lawfully exercised ... " The supreme Court was chastising the Government in this ruling

363

saying, in essence, "If the Congress wants to tax roses, it is not within its powers to call

364

a cactus a rose so it can impose a "rose tax" on the cactus. EISNER v MACOMBER

365

continues, "[Income is] Derived-- from-- capital--the gain--derived--from--capital, etc.

366

Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or

367

increment of value in investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable

368

value ... severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "

369

derived," that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and

370

disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the

371

description ... " NOTE: The emphasis was in the original ruling.

372

SEE " The words 'gain' and 'income' mean the same thing. They are equivalent

373

terms ... " -CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th Congress 2nd Session, pg. 1531

030
16

r
-,

374

SEE "There must be gain before there is "income" within the 16th Amendment."-

375

U.S.C.A. CONST. AM. 16

376

SEE " There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and "wages' and compensation for

377

labor. Compensation for labor CANNOT be regarded as profit within the meaning of the

378

law. The word 'profit, as or~inarily used, means the gain made upon any business or

379

investment---a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor." -OLIVER v

380

HALSTEAD, 86 S.E. Rep. 2d 859.

381

SEE "... Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit..."-

382

LAURENDALE CEMETERY ASSC. v MATTHEWS, 47 Atlantic 2d 277 (1946)

383

SEE "... Congress has taxed income [profits and gains] not compensation" . - CONNOR

384

v U.S., 303 F. Supp., 1187 '69

385

SEE "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure ... But it matters little [what the

386

form says]: the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It

387

taxes income 'derived' from many different sources; ONE DOES NOT 'DERIVE

388

INCOME' [gains or profits] BY RENDERING SERVICES AND CHARGING FOR THEM ."

389

-EDWARDS v KEITH, 231 Fed. Rep. 1.

390

SEE PUBLIC SALARY ACT OF 1939, TITLE 1- SECTION I. sect. 22(a) of the Internal

391

Revenue Code relating to the definition of "gross income," is amended after the words

392

"compensation for personal service" the following: "including [only] personal service as

393

an officer or employee of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof,

394

or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."

395

031
17

'·

r

396

The first supreme Court case to challenge the erroneous idea that the 16th Amendment

397

changed the Constitution and allowed direct taxes to be issued without apportionment,

398

was BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, (1916). SEE the following excerpts:

399

"The confusion (by Brushaber) ... arises from his conclusion that the 16th Amendment

400

provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income

401

tax, which although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of

402

apportionment...The far-reaching effect of Brushaber's erroneous assumption ... if

403

acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, it

404

would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from

405

apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct

406

taxes must be apportioned, ... This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making

407

clear the limitation on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have

408

been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our

409

Constitutional system and multiply confusion ... lndeed, from any other point of view, the

410

Amendment demonstrates that NO SUCH PURPOSE WAS INTENDED, and, on the

411

contrary, shows that it is drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the

412

Constitution and harmonizing their operations ... The 16th Amendment contains nothing

413

repudiating or challenging the ruling of the Pollock Case ... The 16th Amendment, as

414

correctly interpreted, was limited to INDIRECT taxes, and FOR THAT REASON is

415

constitutional. -BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RR CO., 240 U.S. 1, at 10, 11, 12, 19.

416

SEE "The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or exempted

417

subjects ... "- PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165

032
18

418

SEE "The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited

419

the income tax from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT TAXATION to which

420

it inherently belonged ... "- STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 U.S. 103

421
422

As recently as 1979, Howard Zaritsky, a legislative attorney for the Congressional

423

Research Service for the Library of Congress, in responding to a request by Congress

424

for a report on the applicability of the 16th Amendment, determined that "the 16th

425

Amendment had NO legal effect." The Zaritsky Report stated, "In 1916 the supreme

426

Court [Brushaber] rendered its decision regarding the Amendment. In essence the

427

court stated that there is no need for the 16th Amendment..."

428
429

SEE "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing

430

clauses (i.e. apportionment clauses regarding Direct Taxes, uniformity clauses

431

regarding indirect taxes] of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them

432

before the (16th] Amendment was adopted."- EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, at

433

205 (1920)

434
435

THE BOTTOM LINE IS;

436
437

The United States Government did not have the power to impose a graduated, non-

438

appropriated income tax on the compensation earned by the plaintiff, CLIFFORD L.

439

NOLL, SS # 203-36-9997, A sovereign citizen of the state of Idaho, or upon his

440

fundamental right to labor before the 16th Amendment, and they could not, and

033
19

'J.

441

currently cannot impose such a tax after the 16th Amendment. As the plaintiff has

442

stated over, and over, The Internal Revenue Service Agency lacked jurisdiction over

443

him, for the years 1976,1977,1978,1979,1980,1981,1982,1983,1984, and 1988,

444

for ANY REASON. It is important to note that the taxes assessed by the agency DID

445

NOT correlate with compensation for labor or return on investments, or anything else!

446

The amounts were picked out of the air by an agent and assessed, without regard for

447

agency regulations, as a punishment because the Individual Master File indicated that

448

he was their enemy [a tax protester]. The fact is; the plaintiff is not a tax protester; he is

449

simply a person NOT REQUIRED to file.

450

SEE "... (7) However, failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to a denial of

451

due process if the regulations are required by the constitution or statute." Arzanipour v

452

Immigration and Naturalization Service, 866 F. 2d 743, 746

453

(5th Cir. 1989).

454
455

JURISDICTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHALLENGED IN THIS CASE

456
457

From the time Agent Peterson appeared on my door step demanding that I must file a

458

1040 form, his agency's jurisdiction over me has been challenged. His response was

459

that the IRS has jurisdiction over everyone. It is a Fact of Law that the person asserting

460

jurisdiction must, when challenged, PROVE that jurisdiction exists: MCNUTT v G.M., 56

461

S. Ct. 789, 80 L. Ed. 1135, GRIFFIN v MATTHEWS, 310 Supp. 341, 423, F. 2d 272,

462

BASSO v U.P.L., 495 F. 2d 906, THOMSON v GASKIEL, 62 S. Ct.673, 83 L. Ed. 111,

463

and ALBRECT v U.S., 273 U.S. 1.

034
20

•.

464

SEE "Jurisdiction is essential to give validity to the determinations of administrative

465

agencies and where jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied, the action of the

466

agency is a nullity... " City Street lmprov. Co. v Pearson, 181 C 640, 185 P. 962, and

467

O'Neill v Dept. of Professional & Vocational Standards, 7 CA2d 393, 46 P2d 234.

468

SEE "The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION, to appear on the Record of the

469

administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine, 415 U.S.

470

533

471
472

The above named Commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service have instructed

473

agents to join them in a conspiracy to deprive sovereign citizens of their property and

474

"due process" by a campaign of secrecy, innuendoes, and half-truths. The following is

475

found on the front cover of the IRS Audit Manual and The Handbook For Special

476

Agents: AGENTS: ... THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS MANUAL IS

477

CONFIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER. IT MUST NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES,

478

BE MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS OUTSIDE THE SERVICE. .. " The HANDBOOK

479

FOR SPECIAL AGENTS, Constitutional Law, Sect 342.12 continues by stating:

480

(2) "The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to

481

obey a summons issued under IRC Sect. 7602 or a court order directing his/her

482

appearance. He/she is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth Amendment as an

483

excuse for failure to do so, although he/she may exercise it in connection with specific

484

questions. [Landy v. U.S.] He/she cannot refuse to bring his/her records, but MAY

485

DECLINE TO SUBMIT THEM FOR INSPECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.

486

In the Vadner case, the Government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for

035
21

·,

r

487

refusal to obey a court order to produce his books and records. Vadner refused to

488

submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth

489

Amendment. THE COURT DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO HOLD

490

VADNER IN CONTEMPT, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting

491

point for a tax evasion case ...

492
493

Further the IRS Supplement published on 1/10/79 in Section 6 states: ..... A summons of

494

a taxpayers books and records for return of information is not recommended ...

495
496

Regarding the 4th Amendment, The supreme Court has expanded its definition, ruling

497

that: .. It does not require the actual entry upon a premises and search for a seizure of

498

papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the 4th

499

Amendment. A compulsory production of a party's private books and records, to be

500

used against himself or his property in a criminal or penal proceeding, or a forfeiture, is

501

within the spirit of the Amendment. .. - Boyd v U.S., 116 U.S. 616

502
503

Agents go about collecting the maximum amount of money they can (instead of, the

504

maximum amount of tax due) through fraud, collusion, and coercion, believing that the

505

agency will cover for them because the WHOLE TRUTH is hidden from the citizenry to

506

dupe them into believing that they are .. taxpayers ... Agents are taught that the

507

information within the IRS AUDIT MANUAL and HANDBOOK FOR SPECIAL AGENTS

508

is confidential and must not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, be made available to

509

persons outside the service [SEE the front cover]. BLACK'S Law Dictionary describes

036
22

51 0

this technique of collection as .. Collusion II

511

persons to defraud a person of his rights by forms of the law, or to obtain an object

512

forbidden by law. [i.e. non-appropriated direct tax on compensation for labor.] It implies

513

the existence of fraud of some kind, the employment of fraudulent means [i.e.

514

compelling a citizen who has not has not exercised a taxable privilege, to file a 1040 ·

515

form, and demand payment to prevent the further loss of property or freedom.], or

516

unlawful means for the accomplishment of an unlawful purpose. [i.e. using Title 27

517

collection powers to extort payment of Title 26 tax claim, which HAS NO collection

518

power.] [Tomiyous v Golden, 81 Nev. 140, 400 P.2d 415, 417. A secret combination,

519

conspiracy, or concert of action between two or more persons for fraudulent or deceitful

520

purposes.

521

SEE .. Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens,

522

because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to

523

ignorance ... U.S. v MINKER, 350 U.S. 179, 187

--

an agreement between two or more

524
525

In 1970 the supreme court expounded on what constitutes the lawful waiving of

526

Constitutionally guaranteed rights ... WAIVERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NOT

527

ONLY MUST BE VOLUNTARY, THEY MUST BE KNOWINGLY INTELLIGENT ACTS,

528

DONE WITH SUFFICIENT AWARENESS OF THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES

529

AND CONSEQUENCES ... - BRADY v US, 379 US 742 at 748 {1970)

530
531

TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, the agents confiscated rents and intimidated renters

532

(causing the loss of property to valid creditors), caused the sale of real estate (far

037
23

:

533

below market value and confiscated the proceeds), destroyed the plaintiffs non-taxable

534

income stream and ability to provide for his family. All the assets that were being

535

amassed to provide for a college education for my children was unlawfully confiscated

536

under the -guise that I had been convicted by a Federal Court for violating some portion

537

of Title 27 USC to which sections 6321, 6322, 6323, 6324, 6331, 6332, and 6335 of

538

the IRS Code was applicable.

539
540

PLEASE FOLLOW THE MANIPULATION USED BY THE AGENCY TO DUPE

541

CITIZENS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO CAPITULATE TO THEIR

542

CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: NOTE; The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 26, Internal

543

Revenue, contains 799 Parts (particular subject matter of taxes). e.g. Part 1 = INCOME

544

TAX, Part 20 =ESTATE TAX, Part 25 =GIFT TAX, Part 44 =TAXES ON WAGERING,

545

Part 48 =MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS EXCISE TAX, etc. Obviously every

546

Section in the Internal Revenue Code and every Regulation cannot be applicable to

547

every particular type of tax. To keep things straight, each particular tax has a separate

548

.. Part number.. relating to the particular subject matter of the tax. e.g. Part 1 = Individual

549

Income Tax, NOT Taxes on Wagering; CERTAINLY NOT Title 27 AFT Taxes. The only

550

place in the IRC where certain agents have authority to file a return for a .. taxpayer.. is

551

under section 6020 Substitute for Return Authority. The Secretary has promulgated this

552

section into law for use under part 301 kind of taxes only. It is listed in Title 27 CFR as

553

301.6020. There is no authority to use section 6020 for income taxes. It would be listed

554

as 1.6020. This is the same for sections 6201 Assessment Authority, 6301 Collection

555

Authority, 6303 Notice and Demand Authority, 6321 Lien Authority, 6331 - 6343 Levy

038
24

r-'

I

556 · and Distraint Authority, and 6671 Assessment Penalty Authority. These sections have
557

only been authorized for use in Title 27 (AFT) kind of taxes.

. . QUESTION?

558

Where's the implementing authority to use these sections for Part 1 INCOME TAX

559

(1.6020, 1.6201, 1. 6302, 1.6303, 1.6321, 1.6331, 1.6343, and 1.6671 )... ANSWER=

·560

It doesn't exist!! Only Those who Violate Income Tax Regulations [Not Tax Code

561

Statutes] may Incur Civil or Criminal Penalties! The Internal Revenue Code is currently

562

contained in 2 Volumes with 9722 Sections. The Income Tax Regulations are the

563

companion volumes to the Income Tax Sections of the Internal Revenue Code. The

564

Regulations are currently contained in four volumes

565

primarily related to Part 1 Income Taxes and one volume related to miscellaneous

566

types of taxes and Procedures and Administration. The Income Tax Regulations, when

567

promulgated by the Secretary, implement and interpret the Internal Revenue Code.

568

Even if there is a statute within the "Code" without a specific implementing Regulation,

569

that code section HAS NO FORCE of law. 26 USC 7805(a) ".. .The Secretary shall

570

prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title."

571

SEE "For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern." Dodd v United States, 223

572

F Supp 785, Lyeth v Hoey, 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct. 155

573
574

The Internal Revenue Code is not self-executing. A statute in the Internal Revenue

575

Code only authorizes the Secretary to promulgate an implementing regulation. If the

576

Secretary does nothing, the statute imposes no duties and confers no criminal or civil

577

penalties. To promulgate the implementation, the Secretary must, first, publish it in the

578

Federal Register. This is required so Congress knows what the Secretary is doing in

039
25

].

579

regard to taxes because only the Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes.

580

They cannot delegate that power to anyone else.

581

SEE ..... the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulation

582

promulgated by the Secretary; if the secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would

583

impose no penalties on anyone ... The Government urges that since only those who

584

violate these regulations (not the code) may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the

585

actual regulation issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad authorizing

586

language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards against the

587

standards of the 4th Amendment. .. Calif. Bankers Assoc. v Shultz, 416 US 25, 44, 39 L

588

Ed 2d 812, 94 S C.t 1494

589

SEE .. Although the relevant statute authorized the Secretary to impose such a duty, his

590

implementing regulations did not do so. Therefore we held that there was no duty to

591

disclose ..... United States v Murphy, 809 F. 2d 142,1431

592

SEE .. The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no duties until implementing

593

regulations have been promulgated ... California Bankers Ass'n v Shultz, 416 U.S. 21,

594

26, 94 S. Ct 1494, 1500, 39 L. Ed. 2d 812

595

SEE .. Failure to adhere to agency regulations [by the IRS or other agency] may amount

596

to denial of due process if regulations are required by constitution or statute ..... Curley v

597

United States, 791 F. Supp. 52

598
599

IMPORTANT! A part 301 Regulation, by itself, has no legal force to promulgate or

600

implement Part 1, .. Income Tax .. provisions. A Part 301 Regulation is merely a cross

601

reference added, in the interest of completeness, NOT as the lawful .. authority. The

040
26

602

1939 and 1954 Title 26 Internal Revenue Codes for Income Taxes, which were never

603

repealed and are the basis and nucleus of our current system of taxation, did NOT

604

contain a Part 301. From 1939 until 1961, there was NO Part 301 .. Procedure and

605

Administration .. outlining procedures for interest, penalties, property seizures and levies

606

for any Title 26 taxes. The preface to the 54 Regulations (February 16, 1954) states:

607

'This book [1954 Internal Revenue Code] contains rules and regulations constituting

608

Parts 1 to 79 of Title 26 ..... The first time Part 301 mysteriously appeared was in a

609

specially published 1961 edition of CFR Title 26. The preface to those Regulations

61 o

solved the mystery of the origin of Part 301, stating: .. Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco, and

611

Firearms), formerly included ... Part 300 to the end ..... What Particular Types of Taxes

612

were those .. Procedures and Administrations .. applicable to? Alcohol, Tobacco, and

613

Firearms! Part 301 was NOT written for Title 26 Voluntary Income Taxes! These Part

614

301+ provisions carry severe penalties for noncompliance, because Alcohol, Tobacco,

615

and Firearms Tax is a .. regulated .. revenue taxable industry imposing a Mandatory Tax

616

upon which criminal sanctions and property seizures could be imposed! The

617

.. Publishers Notice .. , which was added to the first page of the 1954 microfiche of the

618

CFR., after its publication, makes a reference to this suspicious 1961 altercation,

619

stating: .. No Federal Register citation covering this change was discoverable ... Again,

620

the IRS agents cannot lawfully impose civil or criminal penalties on what they refer to

621

as a 11 1040 kind of tax .. because 1040 forms are only authorized for use under certain

622

limited kinds of taxes of Title 26 USC. Attempting to use a Title 27 authority to penalize

623

the plaintiff is a denial of due process.

041
27

624
625

The fact that Title 26 Income Taxes and Title 27 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Taxes

626

are two different, non-compatible types of taxes is documented in the following Senate

627

Hearing Report from the 83rd Congress, House of Representatives, House Ways and

628

Means 2/3/53-2/13/53: Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

629

Bureau of Internal Revenue: "Let me point this out now. This is where structure [of the

630

Income Tax and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Tax] differs. Your income tax is a

631

100% voluntary tax and your liquor tax [Alcohol, Tobacco, ·and Firearms] is a 100%

632

enforced [mandatory] tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day.

633

Consequently, your same rules simply will not apply!"

634
635

A Publishers note on microfiche in the front of the 1954 Regulations, states: "Title 26,

636

[Parts 1 - 79] INTERNAL REVENUE, was established in 1954 by 19 FR[Federal

637

Register] 6224. "This Title contained administrative rules and regulations pertaining to

638

all matters to which the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was applicable. This Title did

639

not supersede Title 26 INTERNAL REVENUE, as to those facts or circumstances to

640

which provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 were applicable."

641
642

Part 301 in the current Internal Revenue Code is titled "Procedures and

643

Administration". QUESTION?-- "If the 1954 edition of Title 26 contained administrative

644

rules and regulations pertaining to all matters to which the Internal Revenue Code was

645

applicable, why would Title 26 need ANOTHER "Administration and Procedures"

646

merged in from Title 27? The evidence would support the argument that an individual

042
28

r
647

or individuals within the IRS, in 1961, took it upon themselves to move the power of the

648

Internal Revenue Service beyond the authority of Congress, which created them; and

649

to secret their activities, under the guise of law, hoping to avoid the reach of the

650

Federal Court system to reign them in. Their action, in 1961, has induced agents to

651

perpetrate the most insidious crimes, such as fraud, extortion, unwarranted searches,

652

unlawful seizures, denial of due process, etc. upon the sovereign citizens of the 50

653

United States.

654
655

Before ending this complaint, the plaintiff believes that it is important for the court to

656

recognize that the only time a direct tax upon the compensation for labor of sovereign

657

Citizens was authorized by Congress was from 1942 to 1944 under the "War Powers "

658

provision of the Constitution. SEE U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sect. 5, clause 12. This "

659

VICTORY TAX ACT OF 1942" was the reason why the 1040 Form "INDIVIDUAL

660

INCOME AND VICTORY TAX RETURN" was created. The Victory Tax was repealed by

661

Congress on May 29, 1944 (SEE 58 Statutes at Large, Chap 210, pg 234). From 1944

662

until today, anyone can VOLUNTARILY use a 1040 Form to DONATE money to the

663

Federal Treasury. It would not violate any citizen's rights because it is a voluntary act.

664

However, in 1961, when the IRS agents started to claim the power to DEMAND that

665

sovereign citizens of the 50 states MUST FILE a Form 1040 as a means of the agency

666

to collect a direct tax based on compensation for labor; that they could seize property,

667

fine, and/or imprison those who failed to VOLUNTEER, they went beyond the authority

668

Congress gave them. In so doing, the agents violate NOT ONLY Article 1, Section 9,

669

Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution; they also violate the 1st Amendment, which includes

043
29

r
670

the freedom NOT TO SPEAK; the 4th Amendment, demanding records constitutes an

671

unwarranted search; 5th Amendment, demanding that an individual be witness against

672

himself, denying due process, etc.; 6th Amendment, right to be informed of the nature

673

of the accusation, etc.; 10th Amendment, claiming powers not delegated to the Federal

674

government; and the 13th Amendment, created .. involuntary servitude .. , pressing

675

sovereign citizens into service as book keepers for the Dept. of the Treasury. From

676

1944 to 1961 the agency used the ignorance of Citizens, and private employers, to

677

enable them to collect a massive amount of money for the U.S. Treasury. In 1961, they

678

added extortion to their bag of tricks. It is not the 16th Amendment that is

679

unconstitutional. It is the extortion of private property, in the form of a non-apportioned

680

direct tax under the guise of the 16th Amendment, that IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

681
682

The plaintiff has sought full disclosure of administrative remedies to remove the liens

683

which the government holds over him to this day. The agent's response was, that even

684

though the statute for collections had expired, the plaintiff .. owes too much money.. for

685

the liens to be released. He has sent a bill for reimbursement of damages to the

686

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury. He has sought full

687

disclosure of administrative remedies as to how he can be reimbursed for the damages

688

the agency has inflicted upon him. The Internal Revenue Service commissioners and

689

agents have chosen NOT to respond.

690
691

SUMMATION

044
30

692
693

Agents demanded records from the plaintiff, who was not under their jurisdiction and

694

was not required to file.

695
696

Agents went beyond the Title 26 tax code requirement that records must kept for 3

697

years. Agents demanded records for 12 years.(EXHIBIT 1)

698
699

Agents fabricated the figures used in the tax assessment, none of which are supported

700

by actual documents.

701
702

Agents filedtax liens without filing the necessary supporting documents at the office of

703

the Secretary to make the liens valid.(EXHIBIT 2)

704
705

Agents confiscated the plaintiff's property based on invalid liens.

706
707

Agents conspired with each other to use Title 27 USC power to collect an invalid Title

708

26

usc tax.

£.-x. 1-:, Ia ~ T

3

709
710

Agents, in 1993, were confiscating money from the plaintiff and applying it to tax claims

711

that were 17 years old. Title 26 limits collection authority to 6 years. (EXH IBIT 4)

712
713

THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS the court to take action based on the following:

045
31

r
714
715

1.) The agents, have acted, and are acting unconstitutionally by attempting·to assess

716

and collect a DIRECT TAX upon property (compensation for labor) which has not been

717

apportioned. They refer to this fraud and extortion as a "1 040 kind of tax".

718
719

2.) The agents have not filed, and do not have, the necessary supporting documents

720

which are required to be filed with the office of the Secretary; therefore the

721

assessments and liens have always been invalid.

722
723

3.)· The agents have unlawfully seized property by attempting to use Title 27

724

mandatory collection practices to commit grand larceny against the plaintiff.

725
726

4.) The Internal Revenue Service agents have denied the plaintiff his right to due

727

process, and in doing so, has unlawfully seized his property, plundered his pursuit of

728

happiness, and financially restrained him for 9 years. The plaintiff seeks reimbursement

729

from the United States for the losses he has suffered at the hands oftheir agents in the

730

amount of nine million seven hundred forty seven thousand dollars {$9,747,000.00) in

731

actual damages, plus nine million.dollars ($9,000;000.00) in punitive damages, plus

732

legal costs.

c'
Lx "'- ~ b' t _,...
1

#:
.r:..;;>

733
734

735

046

32

736
737

I swear, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the united States of America, that the

738

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability.

739
740
741

~744
Clifford L. Noll, plaintiff prose

742

743

Date¥~ Jff7

744
745

State of Idaho

}

746
747

County of

J(~' }

748

-A{;n.I

~

749

I hereby certify that on this!}!!_ day of

750

whom I know (or has satisfactorily proven to me), appeared to attest and affirm that he

751

isthe

752

Citizen executing the foregoing document.

757

047
33

, 199f1, the above named Citizen