John E. Trumane, appearing specially, in my own stead, under
protest, and with explicit reservation of all my rights.
Your Honor, the Petitioners have left a host of important
questions unanswered.
The Court's original order made reference to an "authorized
representative". Since I have not authorized anyone to represent
me or stand in my place, does this not make the original order
impossible to obey on its face?
Does the record exhibit the authorization required by IRC 7401?
Does the record show that I have been served with evidence of
this authorization?
Petitioners have cited IRC 7402(b). Does this not mandate
appropriate process and show that Petitioners have knowledge of
the 7401 prerequisites?
Does Mr. Extort claim to be the Secretary's authorized delegate
as required by IRC 7401?
Mr. Extort has received written demands from me for exhibition of
his oath of office and his delegation of authority.
Does the record show the Notice of Default which I also sent to
Mr. Extort, via registered U.S. Mail? Does the record not show
that Mr. Extort has failed to exhibit the necessary authorities
to me?
Has the Supreme Court not ruled that jurisdiction and authority
must be demonstrated when they are challenged in writing?
On a higher level of analysis, I refer this Court to Lloyd
Bentsen's disqualification under Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
in the U.S. Constitution. Is it not impossible for Lloyd Bentsen
to delegate any authority whatsoever to Mr. Extort until the end
of Bentsen's latest Senate term?
I refer the Court to Eisner v. Macomber. Regarding Bentsen's
disqualification, has the U.S. Supreme Court not told Congress
that it has no power whatsoever to alter the Constitution by
means of legislation?
On a different level of analysis, Title 26 as such has never been
enacted into positive law, so said House Speaker Tip O'Neill. To
my knowledge, this is still true today. The provision at IRC
7851(a)(6)(A) states that Subtitle F shall take effect on the day
after the Title is enacted.
Is the Court aware that 7401 falls within Subtitle F? Is the
Court aware that 7851(a)(6)(A) also falls within Subtitle F?
Does this not seem like a hopelessly recursive vicious circle,
resulting in obvious vagueness and convolution?
Questions for First Hearing on Order to Show Cause:
Page 1 of 3
Is the Court willing to admit that this one provision causes just
a little bit of doubt about the enforceability of a Summons under
Subtitle F? Is it not the case that this Court has no positive
law to enforce, and hence there is no relief that can be granted
to the Petitioners?
As a California Citizen, am I not immune from the enforcement of
non-positive federal law?
Does the "void for vagueness" doctrine not give me the benefit of
the doubt in such a case?
Has the Supreme Court not held that doubt should be resolved in
favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid?
Has the Supreme Court not held that provisions like 7851 are
construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of
the Citizen?
Have the Petitioners not exhibited a unsubstantiated presumption
that I am a taxpayer?
Is there a judicial determination in the record which shows that
I am taxpayer? I am not aware of any judicial power Court which
has made such a determination.
Is this Court not barred by the exception clause in 28 USC 2201,
the Declaratory Judgments Act, from making such a judicial
determination?
Were this Court to issue an order compelling me to produce books
and records, would not such compelled performance violate my
fundamental rights on its face without my consent? Has the
Supreme Court not ruled that waivers of fundamental rights will
NOT be presumed?
Does not such an order exhibit a rebuttable presumption that
these so-called books and records actually exist?
Does the record contain evidence that I was ever served with
actual notice of a record keeping requirement by the Secretary of
his delegate?
Have we not come full circle back to Lloyd Bentsen's disability?
The Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Petition spends a lot
of time talking about the Powell criteria, and then it refers
specifically to "the investigation of the Kormans' tax
liabilities" on page 6, line 13.
Who are the Kormans, if you don't mind my asking? Are they a
party to this action?
Are we to believe that the Petitioners simply threw boilerplate
before this Honorable Court, and were so sloppy they forgot to
change all the names in their word processor?
Questions for First Hearing on Order to Show Cause:
Page 2 of 3
Does this not strongly suggest bad faith before this Court by the
Petitioners?
What am I to make of the Petitioners' failure to join the issues
which I drafted in my brief? Are they giving their tacit
approval to the points and authorities which I have cited?
Is this Court convened under some colorable jurisdiction? If so,
what jurisdiction would that be exactly?
The original petition made reference to some "it", to which I
strongly object. Does this not imply some kind of juristic
"person"? Are Petitioners attempting to establish a presumption
that I am some kind of juristic person?
May I suggest that this Court take a close look at Rule 12(h)(3),
which states that the Court shall dismiss the action whenever it
appears by the suggestion of the parties that the Court lacks
jurisdiction of the subject matter?
Thank you for your consideration.
Questions for First Hearing on Order to Show Cause:
Page 3 of 3
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
John E. Trumane