Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(For Charles F. Conces) 
 
(His name was Charles F. Conces, and he died after giving this notice of rights to the US Justice Department and the IRS. He came out of a restaurant that he’d attended a meeting at and he died.  I personally believe he was poisoned, but what do I know since I was not there.
Charles headed a group called the Lawmen, that had about 5000 members, that worked to restore our unalienable rights.  I spent days helping him find case law though I was not a member and others spent much more time than I did. He encouraged and showed many how to defend themselves in court. He was jailed like most that have the courage to expose our corrupt judicial system and the IRS.) 
(Blog Master’s Note: Jerry Stanton {Author of “Things Your Lawyer,  Attorney or Judge Won’t Tell You”} has given permission to reprint this court document.  NOTE: everything must be double spaced when presenting documents to a court.  I will provide links to court cases that are available on the internet.  I found two hidden Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Hill and United States v. Throckmorton, .  The Same was true for all F.R.D.  Federal Rules Decisions, only references.) 
 
  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                  Civil No. 1:05CV0713   

Plaintiff,                                                                     Judge Gordon J. Quist

Vs.

Defendant,

Charles Conces,

Individually,

D/b/a Chairman of the Lawmen, Public Interest Groups, an unincorporated organization

________________________________________________________________/

Charles F. Conces,                                                          USA Plaintiff,

Pro-se,                                          Chief Counsel of Internal Revenue Service,

9523 Pine Hill Dr.,                                                           Name Unknown

Battle Creek, Michigan                                                     Address Unknown

__________________________________________________________________/

Michael S. Raum, ND Bar No. 05676, Trial Attorney, Tax Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238, Washington, D.C. 20044,

_________________________________________________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS

Now Comes The Defendant, Charles F. Conces, presenting this

 Memorandum and Assertion of Rights, to this Honorable Court.

The Defendant, Charles F. Conces, hereby declares and asserts the Rights to which he is entitled. Preliminary understanding of the Court’s authority is basic to the assertion of rights:

The Court is obliged to follow precedence decisions as stated in Faye Anastasoff vs. United States of America, 8th Circuit Court, 2000: “It is on this account that our law is deemed certain, and founded in permanent principles, and not dependant on the caprice or will of judges. A more alarming doctrine could not be promulgated by any American court, than that it was at liberty to disregard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference to the settled course of antecedent principles.”

The United States District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (see Black’s Law Dictionary – Seventh Edition) and their power is limited by precedent decisions.

“While in a court of general jurisdiction, there is a presumption that the judge has subject-matter jurisdiction, such is not the case in courts of limited jurisdiction. In all courts of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction.” State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986).

In Anastasoff v. United States,  (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

 “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are [254 U.S. 348, 354] not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340; Old Wayne Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 , 27 Sup. Ct. 236. (underline emphasis added)

1. Defendant asserts his right to reject the Magistrate Judge, Hugh Brenneman, as the presiding judge in this civil case. See Rules of Civil Procedure. Charles F. Conces has previously done so, and does, here and now, reject said Magistrate Judge as the presiding judge in this case.

2. Defendant is entitled to his Constitutional rights. Charles F. Conces does, hereby, assert his 4th Amendment rights to be secure in his person, property, papers, effects, etc. and further asserts that he will not violate any other person’s Constitutional rights to be secure in their person, property, papers, effects, etc.

Some precedent decisions affecting the assertion of Constitutional rights in court are:

“It is true that the constitutional claim would warrant convening a three-judge court and that if a single judge rejects the statutory claim, a three-judge court must be called to consider the constitutional issue.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 528 at 545, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S Ct, 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974).

“Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). “It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost v. Railroad Commission of California, 271 U.S. 583.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land.　 Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

Boyd v. US, 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

3. The record shows that DOJ attorneys violated Charles F. Conces’ due process rights by not obtaining the prerequisite authorization for the civil suit as per 26 USC 7401 and falsifying the record. Thomas Curteman and Michael Raum committed fraud thereafter by covering up the lie, stated by Michael Raum in the complaint and amended complaint that the authorizations had been obtained.

Shushan v. United States, 117 F.2d 110 (CA5): “No trustee has more sacred duties than a public official and any scheme to obtain an advantage by corrupting such and one must in the federal law be considered a scheme to defraud.” 117 F.2d, at 115.

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): “Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth.”

Defendant hereby asserts his right to due process under the Constitution and precedence decisions. Defendant also asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge to make a ruling based on these facts and precedence. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

The Court in PAF, Inc. vs. BA Properties, Inc., N.D. Va. 1998, 24 F.Supp.2d 545, held: “Authorization required by section of Internal Revenue Code requiring government authorization for any civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture is jurisdictional; if claimant fails to show compliance with the statute either by the pleadings or, where the issue is joined, by proof, then the court must dismiss the case.”

This Court should have dismissed this case, as the jurisdictional authorization was challenged, and the DOJ refused to respond. Judge Quist is presumed to know the law. Conces repeatedly challenged the DOJ attorneys on that jurisdictional question and repeatedly asked if the DOJ attorneys had obtained the 7401 authorizations, and repeatedly they refused to answer until Conces was able to gather enough information to prove that they had not done so.

The Court in U.S. vs. One 1972 Cadillac, Coupe Deville, 2-Door Hardtop, ID No. 6D47R2Q238129, E.D. Ky. 1973, 355 F. Supp. 513, held: “Provision of this section that civil actions may not be commenced unless Secretary of Treasury or his delegate authorizes or sanctions it and Attorney General or his delegate directs that it be commenced is jurisdictional.”

The Court in U.S. vs. Twenty-Two Firearms, D.C.Colo. 1979, 463 F. Supp. 730, held: “In absence of a denial, authorization of the Secretary or his delegate and the direction of the Attorney General or his delegate to commence forfeiture proceeding by means of which government sought to declare firearms forfeit could be presumed, however, allegations of authority to proceed and direction to commence the action are denied, issues are put to proof and conditions precedent shall not be presumed.”

The record was falsified by the DOJ attorneys.

“The record must show that the statute was complied with”; In re Marriage of Stefiniw, 253 Ill.App.3d 196, 625 N.E.2d 358 (1st Dist. 1993).

“Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v Buist, (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.

The record of the case shows that the DOJ attorneys falsified the record.

“A judgment is characterized as void and may be collaterally attacked at any time where the record itself furnished the facts which establish that the court acted without jurisdiction.” People v. Byrnes, 34 Ill.App.3d 983, 341 N.E.2d 729 (2nd Dist. 1975).

The April 11, 2006, filing by Charles Conces, challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court disregarded those challenges, and in doing so, denied the rights of Charles Conces to a settlement of those jurisdictional challenges, in violation of Due Process.

“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”,Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

The DOJ attorneys committed fraud by falsifying the record.

“Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court”, People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994). (underline emphasis)

“A ‘void’ judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.” 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97. (underline emphasis)

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” United States v. Throckmorton,  98 U.S. 61. (underline emphasis)

“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.” State v. LaPier, 961 P.2d 1274, 289 Mont. 392, 1998 MT 174 (1998).

“Ruling made in absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.” State v. Dvorak, 574 N.W.2d 492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998).

4. Charles Conces asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge. If Judge Quist does not follow the law, i.e. vacate the Orders issued in this case, due to fraud worked on 26 USC 7401, then it must be concluded that Quist is not following statutory procedure, and loses subject matter jurisdiction. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

28 U.S. Code 455:”Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned… He shall disqualify himself in the following circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

Subject matter jurisdiction fails: if a judge does not follow statutory procedure, and where the judge does not act impartially, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921), Bracy v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). (underline emphasis)

“Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse. When a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.”Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962). (underline emphasis)

“A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.” In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999). (underline emphasis)

“Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect” Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982). (underline emphasis)

Judge Quist violated precedence law and the rights of Charles Conces, when he stated that he would not tolerate jurisdictional challenges. It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Quist has not acted impartially and fairly, and must recuse himself. It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Quist has acted in an extremely biased and unfair way, and that Quist has no intention of acting impartially in future proceedings. The cannons for a judge include: “A judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all of his or her activities.”

“Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.” People v. Rolland 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).

“Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.” People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).  Conces also finds that Judge Quist’s statements at the June 21, 2006, hearing, reveal that Judge Quist had not read nor understood the pleadings of Conces. Quist stated, “And I just rejected the most recent documents. It is the same stuff that I see all the time from people that believe for one reason or another they don’t have to pay their taxes.” None of Conces’ pleadings have ever stated or inferred that people should not pay their taxes. Then Quist listed a number of tax protester arguments, and Conces had to repeatedly state that he has never used those arguments. Quist had his mind made up before he had even looked at the Conces pleadings and court rulings that Conces had presented to the Court.

 

5. Conces asserts his right to the findings and conclusions on all matters of fact, law, and any discretionary matters. See April 11, 2006, Defendant filing which stated, “This Court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear this case. See Undisputed Facts, in particular numbers 8 through 18.” Judge Quist refused to present findings and conclusions, in violation of precedent decision:  South Carolina State Port Authority v. Federal Maritime Commission et　al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. Argued February 25, 2002–Decided May 28, 2002: “ The proceedings are adversary in nature. They are conducted before a trier of fact insulated from political influence. A party is entitled to present his case by oral or documentary evidence, and the transcript of testimony and exhibits together with the pleadings constitutes the exclusive record for decision. The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.” (underline emphasis)

Charles Conces hereby asserts his right to an impartial judge who will follow precedence law, from which the Court derives its powers. Anastoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

6. Charles Conces, hereby asserts his right to challenge jurisdiction and the right to have the Court follow precedence and stop all proceedings until the jurisdictional questions are settled. See April 11, 2006 filing for “undisputed facts”, numbered 8 through 18.

“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them; the question is, whether on the case before a court, their action is judicial or extra-judicial; with or without the authority of law, to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties.” State of Rhode Island v. Com. of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838). (underline emphasis)

The United States Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have ruled that when jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven, on the record, or the case must be dismissed.　 See: Melo v. U.S. , 505 F 2d, 1026. “Once jurisdiction has been challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction.　 The court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the case.”　and see Joyce v. U.S. , 474 F2d 215.

 

7. Charles Conces asserts his right to have this Court of limited jurisdiction, adhere strictly to its statutory authority, and be presented with statutory authority for actions.

“Whereas a court of general jurisdiction is presumed to have jurisdiction to render any judgment in a case arising under the common law, there is no such presumption of jurisdiction in cases arising under a specific statutory grant of authority. In the later cases the record must reveal the facts which authorize the court to act.” Zook v. Spannaus, 34 Ill.2d 612, 217 N.E.2d 789 (1966).

Subject matter jurisdiction fails: if a judge does not follow statutory procedure, and where the judge does not act impartially, Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921), Bracy v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). (underline emphasis)

8. Charles Conces asserts his right to have all jurisdictional matters and questions on jurisdiction settled before the Court proceeds further. Judge Quist denied my request to settle jurisdictional questions and proceeded without even a pause or serious reflection on the jurisdiction matters.

“However late this objection has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.”STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657, 718 (1838). (underline emphasis)

Anastasoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

9. Charles Conces asserts his right to be informed if any corrections are necessary. See Haines v. Kerner ,  404 U.S. 519 (1972) and Plaskey v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, “Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings.”

Judge Quist and Judge Brenneman have denied every motion that Charles Conces has made, without providing opportunity for any corrections and without even stating that any corrections were necessary. Such violations of precedence, violates the rights of Charles Conces.

10. Charles Conces asserts his right to substantial justice. Substantial justice requires truth as to facts and law. The DOJ attorneys lied and made many false statements in the complaint and amended complaint, in violation of Rule 11 and Rule 8.

“Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co.
303 U.S. 197 .  Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957).

Charles Conces asserts his right to conclude that the precedence law, stated in the “factual Inquiry” and presented to the DOJ attorneys, is good case law and has not been overturned. Those precedence cases established that the requirement of “apportionment” is still operative in the U.S. Constitution, and that the 16th Amendment did not grant any additional taxing powers to the federal government, nor did it bring any new subjects under the federal government’s taxing powers. The DOJ attorneys remained silent on the factual inquiry.

11. Charles Conces asserts his right to know the cause of action that gave rise to the case. Without a cause of action listed, the case cannot be filed in District Court. The DOJ attorneys cited 28 USC section 1340, as the cause of action. “Einhorn” clearly states the fallacy of such a claim. The DOJ attorneys are presumed to know the law, and show incompetence or deceit, by making such a claim.

“District Court has no jurisdiction under 28 USCS § 1340 of action by taxpayers seeking injunctive and mandamus relief against Internal Revenue Service on basis of taxpayers’ interpretation of IRS regulation since § 1340 provides that District Court shall have jurisdiction of action arising under any Act of Congress and not actions arising under agency regulations which are without force of law.” Einhorn v. DeWitt,  (1980, CA5 Fla), 618 F.2d 347, 80-2 USTC P 9486, 46 AFTR 2d 5093. (underline emphasis)

Section 1340 does not give rise to a cause of action, because if it did so, then the United States would have a “cause of action” against every citizen of the United States. That is total and utter nonsense.

“A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958). (underline emphasis)

The cause of action listed no law. “…jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States means a law providing in terms of revenue; that is to say, a law which is directly traceable to the power granted to Congress by ‘8, Article I, of the Constitution, ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.'” US v Hill, 123 US 681, 686 (1887). (underline emphasis)

“Only by the filing of an information which complies with this mandatory statutory requirement can the district court obtain subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance which then empowers the court to adjudicate the matters presented to it.” Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 at 431, (Okl. Cr. 1990).

Charles Conces asserts his right to have the District Court adhere to precedence. There was no true plaintiff name on the complaint, and no verification by a complaining party. As such, no action has been commenced.

“Complaint must identify at least one plaintiff by true name; otherwise no action has been commenced.” Roe v New York (1970, SD NY) 49 F.R.D. 279, 14 FR Serv 2d 437, 8 ALR Fed 670.

12. Charles Conces asserts his right to confront witnesses against defendant. The DOJ never presented any witnesses.

“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245 at 250, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2.

“And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel.”DOLBEAR v. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. MOLECULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY. CLAY COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. PEOPLE’S TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. OVERLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. (PART TWO THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1 , 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.

“Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

“As we have said of other unsworn statements which were not part of the record and therefore could not have been considered by the trial court: “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” Adickes v. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144 – 158, n. 16

13. Charles Conces asserts his “Due Process” rights under the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Conces has the right to the conclusion that the judgments and orders of Judge Quist are null and void, because the DOJ attorneys did not obtain the required authorizations under 26 USC 7401. Additionally, Judge Quist, at the June 21, 2006, hearing made an unexplainable statement, “Well, we’re way past that now because you didn’t respond to the complaint. And so there was a default…” Contrary to Judge Quist’s statement, Conces did, in fact, respond to the complaint and also responded to the amended complaint, paragraph by paragraph, rebutting the many false statements by the DOJ attorney, Michael Raum. The complaint should have been dismissed right there and then, if for no other reason than the many provably false statements by the DOJ attorneys who had no witnesses or evidence for their allegations.

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732 -733 (1878). Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-314 (1950), and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 US 286, 291 (1980); National Exchange Bank v. Wiley , 195 US 257 (1904); Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878).

“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

“Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered”, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).

 Anastoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000), “The judicial power of the United States is limited by the doctrine of precedence.”

14. Charles Conces asserts his right to the truth, concerning 26 USC 7608 language, which states that (all) enforcement revenue agents, by whatever title, are authorized to enforce only subtitle E and the commodities subject to tax, and that only Criminal Investigators of the Intelligence Division are authorized to enforce the other subtitles. The DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist falsely stated that the whole of 26 USC 7608 was a criminal statute and did not apply to all Internal Revenue enforcement agents. This was a deliberate distortion of the truth by the DOJ attorneys and Judge Quist, and Quist did not explain his dismissal of Conces’ Motion, other than the use of that false statement.

Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917): “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ,  141 U.S. 468, 474, 12 S. Sup. Ct. 55; Benziger v. U S , 192 U.S. 38, 55, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 189.” Also see Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 417 (1904).

“When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction – that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there – is also the last, and judicial inquiry is complete.” Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US 249, L. .Ed 2nd 391[1992]

15. Charles Conces asserts his right to honest representations and authorized representatives of the Department of Justice. Michael Raum and Thomas Curteman have been actively engaged in the subversion of the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and under Amendment 14, section 3 of the Constitution, cannot hold Office, having committed perjury on their Oaths to defend and uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States. The subversion of law and violation of Due Process under the 14th Amendment, were not mere oversights, nor mere neglect; they were deliberate, calculated, willful, and knowing acts of subversion and rebellion against the laws, i.e., 26 USC 7401, against the common law, and against the Due Process of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Wherefore, Defendant, Charles F. Conces, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court inform him of any errors in this pleading, as per Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972) and Plaskey v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, so that any needed corrections can be duly made.

Date: November 28, 2006

The above rights are asserted and all rights are preserved,

Signature: ___________________________

Printed Name: Charles F. Conces

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on November 28, 2006, I made service of these documents, “MEMORANDUM AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS“, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, case no. 1: 05 cv 0739 on the following attorney:

Michael S. Raum, Trial Attorney, Tax Division,

U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238,

Washington, D.C. 20044

Signed: ___________________________

Charles F. Conces

Dated: November 28, 2006