Posted 4:27 PM by Creditwrench

Richard Cornforth of Oklahoma City, founder of J'accuse suggests that the following may be useful to Mr. Dick Simkanin in resolving his legal problems with the IRS.
The entire brief as originally written by Mr. Richard Cornforth is available at Simbrief1.ZIP


In The United States District Court For The
Northern District of Texas
Fort Worth Division

The United States of America,)
)
plaintiff, )
)
v. ) case number 4-03CV1438-A
)
Richard Michael Simkanin, )
D/b/a Arrow Custom Plastics,)
)
defendant. )

Defendant, Richard Michael Simkanin, moves this court under authority of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12 (b)(1) – this court is wholly and totally lacking in subject matter jurisdiction invoking this court’s non-discretionary duty to dismiss this
instant action with prejudice as to other filings

Brief in support

1. The papers filed in this instant case by Ramona S. Notinger, allegedly representing The United States of America, are, collectively, a substantive and procedural nullity – patently frivolous.
2. The first jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record is Notinger’s allusions to various titles without so much as one authority establishing a nexus between the title and Richard Michael Simkanin, hereinafter, “Dick Simkanin.” This court is noticed and Notinger is informed: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and may only exercise jurisdiction when specifically authorized to do so. A party seeking to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856), Security Trust Company v. Black River National Bank (12/01/02) 187 U.S. 211, 47 L. Ed. 147, 23 S. Ct. 52, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936), Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization et al. (06/05/39) 307 U.S. 496, 59 S. Ct. 954, 83 L. Ed. 1423, United States v. New York Telephone co. (12/07/77) 434 U.S. 159, 98 S. Ct. 364, 54 L. Ed. 2d 376, Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization et al. (05/14/79) 441 U.S. 600, 99 S. Ct. 1905, 60 L. Ed. 2d 508, Cannon v. University of Chicago et al. (05/14/79) 441 U.S. 677, 99 S. Ct. 1946, 60 L. Ed. 2d 560, Patsy v. Board of Regents State of Florida (06/21/82) 457 U.S. 496, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172, Merrill Lynch v. Curran et al.. (05/03/82) 456 U.S. 353, 102 S. Ct. 1825, 72 L. Ed. 2d 182, 50 U.S.L.W. 4457, Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinee(06/01/82) 456 U.S. 694, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 72 L. Ed. 2d 492, 50 U.S.L.W. 4553, Matt T. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (05/16/94) 128 L. Ed. 2d 391, 62 U.S.L.W. 4313, United States ex rel. Holmes v. Consumer Ins. Group, 279 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002) citing United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Industries, 971 F.2d 548, 551 (10th Cir. 1992). Notinger’s papers cite not so much as one single authority empowering this court to act against Dick Simkanin relative to any of the federal titles Notinger impositions this court with.
3. Even if Notinger amended the defective complaint by citing a controlling authority wherein this court could have power of judicial review over individuals similarly situated to Dick Simkanin relative to the titles Notinger impositions this court with, Notinger’s papers are fundamentally lacking in evidentiary support that the Federal District court has territorial jurisdiction. Presumably, Notinger contents that the alleged infractions took place at 3717 Commerce Place, Suite A, Bedford, Texas 76021. This court has knowledge: jurisdiction can never be presumed. It is incumbent on the party asserting that the court has jurisdiction to prove that jurisdiction exists ON THE RECORD, to wit: Dick Simkanin challenges the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas’ territorial jurisdiction over 3717 Commerce Place, Suite A. Bedford, Texas 76021. Notice to the court: fifteen days from the service of this motion on Notinger, Notinger’s failure to prove that the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas has territorial jurisdiction over 3717 Commerce Place, Suite A. Bedford, Texas 76021 requires mandatory dismissal with prejudice. Submitted: Challenging territorial jurisdiction IS NOT A QUESTION FOR THE COURT. Proving jurisdiction is not a matter of Notinger’s opinions or conclusions.
4. Even if Notinger managed to produce the documentation showing that this court had jurisdiction, Notinger’s frauds on this court deprive this court of subject matter jurisdiction. Notinger’s frauds include: On page 2, article 6 of the so-called complaint for permanent injunction Notinger advances the fraud that the mere indictment of Dick Simkanin validates Mr. Sinkanin’s lawful obligation to comply with the federal titles Notinger impositions this court with. On page 4, article 30, Notinger claims that the IRS can prepare returns: Notinger’s arguments are fraudulent in context without Notinger proving to this court that the IRS has authority prepare substitute “1040’s.” On page 5, article 31, Notinger makes the absolutely absurd assertion that people can be compelled to obey the law. This patently frivolous, utterly nonsensical utterance of Notinger’s warrants the termination of Notinger’s employment for grotesque incompetence. Submitted: if people could be compelled to obey the law, the courts would all be empty. Perhaps Notinger could hire out as a consultant to various departments of public safety and inform them of their state’s prerogative to eliminate such organs as traffic courts and highway patrols by simply compelling people to obey traffic laws: this court absolutely knows that authority to compel compliance with any law as opposed to consequences for violation of law is not merely beyond the authority of this court, but is utterly absurd. On page 6, in article E. Notinger works a fraud on this court that this court has authority to compel a person to testify against themselves; On page 1, paragraph two of Notinger’s so-called “United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” Notinger works a fraud on this court by claiming that sums withheld from employees are “employment taxes.” Notinger should be compelled to appear and testify before a federal grand jury and explain her theory of how people can be assessed a tax for the privilege of working. Perhaps Notinger means federal income tax withholding. This court is noticed: such a characterization would be just another fraud by Notinger. Sums withheld from employees are not taxes but mere deposits as if held in escrow should the person for whom the withholding is done become subject to a tax. To reiterate: Notinger works a fraud on this court by urging that The United States Treasury has an lawful interest in sums withheld by an employer from employees. The mere act of withholding does establish that sums withheld are the United States’. Notinger’s claim that an employer who declines to participate in violation of 26 USC 7214(a) is depriving the United States Treasury is a fraud FRAUD! To re-reiterate: SUMS WITHHELD FROM EMPLOYEES ARE NOT TAXES PAID TO THE TREASURY AND SINCE THEY ARE NOT TAXES PAID TO THE TREASURY, FAILING TO WITHHOLD SUMS FROM EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE CONTRUED AS DEPRIVING THE TREASURY AS THE TREASURY HAS NO LAWFUL CLAIM TO SUMS WITHHELD BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT SUMS ARE WITHHELD. See Baral v. United States, 528 U.S. 431, 120 S. Ct. 1006, 145 L. Ed. 2d 949 (U.S. 02/22/2000). Notinger also works a fraud on this court by impositioning this court to accept Joe Wayne Cooper as an uncertified expert witness. Cooper’s largely incoherent “declaration” is infested with cooper’s theories, conclusions, and opinions, which, while Notinger obviously thinks Cooper’s inflated sense of self-importance is instructional and informative to this court, this court has knowledge that the declaration is defective for reason that Cooper doesn’t state “the facts, just the facts,” but abuses this court to personally ridicule Dick Simkanin.
5. Even if Notinger amended the papers Notinger has impositioned this court with by cleansing the papers of the numerous frauds and other arrogated nonsense, Notinger’s complaint would still be barred by the Clean Hands Doctrine. The IRS, by and through countless agents including Notinger, Cooper, and also countless rogue agents such as federal judges, has unclean hands. This court is noticed of malum in se offenses occurring at 26 USC 7214(a). Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents - Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States - (1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or (2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or (3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or (5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or (6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or (7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or (8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or (9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do; shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution. This court has knowledge or means to know that IRS employees are paid bonuses for eviscerating folks such as Dick Simkanin – what law is that? Its also true that IRS agents, agents of the so-called Department of Justice, and rogue agents such as federal judges have demanded sums greater than and different from actually owed countless times, yet these agents and rogue agents go unpunished for their felony crimes articulated under 26 USC 7214(a) and collaterally occurring at 18 USC 1961 & 1962 soiling the hands of the United States prohibiting the United States from lawfully prosecuting any action prior to ferreting out and prosecuting every single criminal employed by in service of the IRS, whether an actual employee or a rogue such as a federal judge, and punishing them to the full extent of the law. How can this court know that 26 USC 7214(a) has been violated countless times? It’s simple really; the IRS failed audit, see - GAO/T-AIMD-96-56 which revealed that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE could not verify that IRS agents including directors and rogue agents such as judges, HAD EVER COMPLIED WITH 26 USC 7214(a). No GAO audit of the IRS since the failed audit verifies that the IRS has “cleaned up their act.”
6. Even if the IRS cleaned up its act by doing the inconceivable of prosecuting and sending to prison, tens of thousands of IRS agents, so-called justice department attorneys, and rogue agents such as federal judges, the United States would still have unclean hands by virtue of the fact that the IRS achieves court results by threatening, coercing, and intimidating federal judges. It has become common knowledge that the IRS maintains a file on all federal judges with the threat that should that federal judge get out of line by ruling according to the law of the land instead of the private agenda of the IRS and the unseen power, the criminal element which the IRS so effectively serves, that federal judge shall suffer consequences so severe that no person interested in self-preservation would even consider crossing the IRS and the so-called Department of Justice. Evidence and testimony available on request.
Conclusion
7. This court has a non-discretionary duty to dismiss civil action 4-03CV1438 for the Northern District of Texas with prejudice as to other filings.


Prepared and submitted by: _________________________________
Richard Michael Simkanin

Certificate of service

I, ________________________, certify that _________________________, I hand delivered a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing defendant’s motion to dismiss to: Ramona S. Notinger, 717 N. Harwood, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75201


_______________________________

---

Mr. Cornforth also suggests the following for consideration by Dick Simkanin

In The United States District Court For The
Northern District of Texas
Fort Worth Division

The United States of America, )
)
plaintiff, )
)
v. ) case number 4-03CV1438-A
)
Richard Michael Simkanin, )
D/b/a Arrow Custom Plastics, )
)
defendant. )

Defendant, Richard Michael Simkanin, moves this court under authority of 28 USC 144 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges for disqualification of (judge’s name)

Brief in support

This court is noticed of this court’s non-discretionary duty to recuse: 28 USC 144 is a “shall” statute, and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires a judge’s disqualification where the judge has a vested financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, no matter how slight.
(judge’s name) is on the payroll of the plaintiff in this lawsuit and therefore has a vested financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges precludes (judge’s name) or any other judge similarly situated from hearing this case.










Affidavit
I, Richard Michael Simkanin, of age and competent to testify state as follows based on my own personal knowledge:
I will not receive a fair trial in (judge’s name)’ court.

___________________________
Richard Michael Simkanin

STATE OF TEXAS INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF ______________________

Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this ____ day of ________, 2004, personally appeared __________________________ to me known to be the identical person who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act.
Given under my hand and seal the day and year last above written.
My commission expires __________
________________ Notary Public

Conclusion
This court has a non-discretionary duty to dismiss civil action 4-03CV1438 for the Northern District of Texas with prejudice as to other filings.


Prepared and submitted by: _________________________________
Richard Michael Simkanin





Certificate of service

I, ________________________, certify that _________________________, I hand delivered a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing defendant’s motion to dismiss to: Ramona S. Notinger, 717 N. Harwood, Suite 400, Dallas, Texas 75201


_______________________________