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).

Download PDF
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 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?