Ryskamp v. Commissioner Appellant Brief Ninth Circuit 14-73059

- <I
(1 of 83)
Case: 14-73059, 11/18/2014, ID: 9323993, DktEntry: 4-1, Page 1 of 36
RgoEttyGcDEWYl
ERVCLE
ERKD
U.s.co6nT()FAFFEALS
N0V122216
AppealNo.14-73059
F
LE
DI
O
GD
KETED
DATE ----- INITIAu'
UNITED STATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHENINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN RYSICAMP,
Petitioner-Appellant,
COMMISSIONER0FINTERNALREVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
OnAppeal9om theUnitedStatesTaxCourt
No.8888-13(Nega,J.
)
OPENINGBRIEFOFPETITIONERXPPELLANT
Jolm Ryskamp
1677ArchStreet
Berkeley,Califonlia94709
(510)848-6898
philneozool@yahoo.
com
(2 of 83)
CERTIFICATEASTO PARTIES,RULGGS,AND RELATED CASES
PursuanttoD.C.CircuitRule28(a)(1),Appellantmakesthefollowingcertilcate:
A. PartiesandAmici
Jolm Ryskamp,Petitioner-Appellant
1677ArchSt.
Berkeley,CA 94709
(510)848-6898
CommissioneroflnternalRevenue,Respondent-Appellee
CurtisPett
TaxDivision,U.S.Dept.ofJustice
P.O.Box502
Washington,D.C.20044
TheCommissioneroflntemalRevenueappearedintheTaxCourtandisaparty
inthisCourt.Noamiciappearedinthe'PaxCourt.
B. RulingsUnderReview
Therulingatissuein tllisappealistheOrderand OrderofDismissaland
Decision ofJudge Joseph Nega entered on March 27,2014,panting RespondentAppellee'sMotionfortoDismissforLackofProsecution.
RelatedCases
4ThiscasehasnotpreviouslybeenbroughtbeforethisCourt.
f
tol
1;
.
JohntRyskamp -
i
Dated:November18,2014
(3 of 83)
TABLEOFCONTENTS
CERTIFICATEASTO PARTIES,RULINGSAND RELATED CASES
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
IV
JURISDICTIONALSTATEMENT
2
STATEMENTOFTHECASE
SUMMARY OFARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
1. TheTax Courtcommitted reversibleerrorinrulingthattherewaslack of
prosecution,becauseatrialcouldnothavebeenheld.
II. A trialcouldnothavebeen heldbecause,oncethedocketedTax Courtwas
illegallytransferredbytheCommissionertotheAppealsOftice,theAppealsOftice
waslegallyrequiredto-anddidnot-issueaNoticeofDetermination,respondingto
theargtzmentsinthepetition.
111. A trialcouldnothavebeenheldbecause,in cormection with theNoticeof
Determination,theAppealsOfficewaslegallyrequiredto-anddidnot--obtain
verification 9om the Secretary thatthe requirements ofany applicable 1aw or
administrativeprocedurehadbeenmet.
lV. A trialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausethefailureoftheTaxCourtto
compelissuanceofaNoticeofDeterminationpreventedtheCourtfrom ruling
onthemerits.
(4 of 83)
AtrialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausetheinabilityoftheTaxCourttoruleon
themedtsprecludeda26USC6330(d)(1)judicialreviewofdetermination,sothere
couldnotbealackofprosecution.
VI.AtrialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausetheTaxCourtviolateditsownArticlel
CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
30
31
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
111
(5 of 83)
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
CASES
Buczekv.Commissioner,
21
143T.
C.No.16(Oct.6,2014)
Coxv.Commissioner,
Custom Stairsv.Commissioner,
T.
C.Memo.2011-155(2011)
22,26
Ljntfcyv.hormet,
405U.
S.56(1972)
*Marburyv.Madison,
5U.S.(1Cranch)137,178;
26
*lhornberryv.Commissioner,
136T.
C.No.16(2011)
5,17-22,26-27
Vnatieriv.Commissioner,
133T.
C.No.16(2009)
22,26-27
WestCoastHotelCo.v.Parrish,
300U.S.379(1937)
*WestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette,
319U.S.624(1943)
(6 of 83)
STATUTES
4,6,10cfseq.
*26USCSection6330
11-28
26USCSection6320(b)
OTHERAUTHORITWS
#U.S.Const.art1
*U.S.Const.amend.V
ChiefCounselNoticeCC-2012-003
IntemalRevenueManual,8.4.1.6.2
IntemalRevenueManual,35.3.23.5.1
*collectionFinancialStandards,
hdpr//- .irs.gov%dividuals/collection-Finrcial-standards
ARTICLES
G.EdwardWhite,dtHistoricizingJudicialScrutiny,''
hp://law.bepress.coeuvalwps/uvapubliclaw/art3l.
*AuthoritiesuponwhichIcllieflyrelyaremarkedwithastedsks.
4,5,18etseq.
3,5,6,16,18,27
16-20
24-25
5,16-17
2,5etseq.
25
(7 of 83)
JURISDICTIONM ZSTATEMENT
Under26U.S.C.j74824$,thecourtsofappealsotherthantheFederalCircuit
haveexclusivejurisdictiontoreviewTaxCourtdecisionsinactionstoredeterminetax
liability.SeealsoMeruelov.Comm'
r,691F.3d1108,1114(9thCir.2012)(exercising
tlisCourthasjurisdiction
overtheinstantcase.
Mt
-h
(8 of 83)
STATEMENTOFTHE ISSUES
WhenadocketedTM CourtcaseisillegallytransferredtotheAppealsOffice,
musttheAppealsOffceissueaNoticeofDetermination?
Whatisthelaw oftheCollectionFinancialStandardsinconjunctionwith
*4
(9 of 83)
STATEMENTOFTHECASE
ThepetitionwasfiledonApril23,2013.OnJuly30,2013,andwithoutthe
permissionofPetitioner-AppellanttheCommissionertransferredthedocketedcaseto
theAppealsOffice.OnOctober28,2013,theAppealsOfficeassertedthatithaddtsole
settlement authorityy'' that it was separate from-and independent
the
Commissioner,andthatitwouldtreview''thecaseusingthe1aw andcourtdecisionsto
weighthefacts.''OnNovember2,2013,Petitioner-AppellantdemandedthattheAppeals
Officeccitea11lawsand authoritiespursuantto which thiscasehasallegedlybeen
(refen-ed'to the Appeals Office.'' On November 6,2013,the Appeals Oftice
acknowledgedthattheabove-descdbedactionsoftheAppealsOfficeare(sofferedasa
voluntaryoptiononeverydocketedU.S.TaxCourtcase.''OnDecember11,2013,the
illegallytransferreddocketedTaxCourtcasewasreturnedbytheAppealsOfficetothe
Commissioner,theAppealsOfficestatingthatithaddttriedtosettlethiscaseandavoid
trial.''Petitioner-AppellantdidnotparticipateinanyoftheactionstakenbytheAppeals
OfficewithrespecttothedocketedTaxCourtcase.OnDecember11,2013,PetitionerAppellantmovedtheTaxCourtforatlorderrequiringtheAppealsOfficeissueaNotice
ofDetermination.Themotionwasdenied.OnDecember17,2013,Petitioner-Appellant
sezvedaletterontheAppealsOffice,demandingthatitissueaNoticeofDetermination.
NoNoticeofDeterminationhaseverbeenissued.OnSeptember9,2013,theNoticewas
issued setting thettialforFebruary 10,2014. On September 12,2013,PetitionerAppellantmovedtovoidtheNoticeongoundsthatthedocketedcasehadbeenillegally
(10 of 83)
transferredtotheAppealsOffce.Themotionwasdenied.OnNovember9,2013,
Petitioner-AppellantfiledthePretrialMemorandum,againtellingtheCourtthatitKmust
notattempttoholdatrial''becausetheillegaltransferredmeantthattheAppealsOffice
hadnotprovidedthe26USC6330(c)(1)veriscation,notrialcouldbeheldwherethe
requirementsofanyapplicable1aw oradmiistrativeprocedurehadnotbeenmet,and
thattheillegaltransferwasaviolationoftheTaxCourt'sjurisdiction.Themotionwas
denied. On November4,2013,Petitioner-Appellantfiled a motion f0r summazy
judgment,assertingarighttotheissuanceofaNoticeofDeterminationandthatnotlial
couldbeheldwithoutone.Themotionwasdenied.TheOrderwasissuedonMareh27,
2014,in which the CourtwarnedPetitioner-Appellantthatdiadvancing frivolousand
voundlessargumentsin thefuturemay lead to theimpositionofapenalty on him
pursuanttosection6673(a)(1).
4
(11 of 83)
SUMMARY OFTHEARGUMENT
ThiscaseshowsclearlyillegalconductonthepartoftheCommissionerandthe
AppealsOffce,workingtogethertodenytaxpayerrights,and admittingthattheyare
doingso.TherecanbenoquestionthattheStrial''couldnothavebeenheld,thatitwas
notatrialforpurposesoftheConstitmion,andthattherewasnolackofprosecution.I
repeatedlymovedforanddemandedmylegalrights,a11ofwllichhadtobevindicatedin
orderforaConstit
mionaltrialtobeheld.TheTaxCourt
-itsjurisdictionrepeatedly
violatedbytheCommissionerandtheAppealsOffce-refused,eitheronrequestorsua
sponte,toassertitsjurisdictionbywayofrightingtheConstitutionalwrongs.lndoing
so,itviolateditsownjudsdiction,andtheArticleIrequirementthatitbeaCourt.The
non-,mis-andmalfeasanceoftheTaxCourt,theCommissionerandtheAppealsCourq
bothseparatelyandincombination,areclear,convincing-indeed,beyonddispute.
Thequestionis,whatisthisCourt'sdutyoncethecaseisremandedtotheTax
CourtforproceedingswhichmeetConstitutionalrequirements? ForU.S.Const.amend.
(dueprocess'')andArt
ideIpurposes,when theCommissionertransferredthe
docketedTaxCourtcasetotheAppealsOffice,hetreatedthepetitionas-forpurposes
oftheAppealsOffice'sjurisdiction-aRequestforaCollectionDueProcessHeadng.
(Normally,tllisisdoneonForm 121534lhaveneverrequestedaCollectionDueProcess
Hearingintlliscase.
) A NoticeofDeterminationwasrequiredwhichansweredthe
argumentsinthepetition,justas,inanonualcase,theAppealsOfficeisrequiredunder
Thornberlyv.CommissionertoanswertheargumentsintheRequestforaCollectionDue
/
e*le
ProcessHearing.SointhiscasetheAppealsOflicemustissueaNoticeofDetermination
5
(12 of 83)
atthisCourt'sorder.Butthatonlyrevealstheunsettledstateofthe1awwhichisatthe
heartofthiscase.Itisastateofaffairswhichhas1edtheCommissionerhimself,inthe
InternalRevenueManual,tocallthesubstantiveandproceduraldghtsoftaxationa
(
tdevelopingareaoflaw''(InternalRevenueManual,35.3.
23.5.1),inhissectiondevoted
toMotion to DismissforLack ofJudsdiction When CDP Hearing RequestDenied
UnderIR.
C 6330(g).
'' Insostating,heisreferringpreciselytoanothercasebythe
Petitioner-AppellantwhichiscurrentlyonfileatattheD.C.CircuitAppealsCourt@o.
14-1042).
ltisthisCourtwhichmusttellusinwhatdirectionthelaw isdeveloping.Aswill
becomeclear,whatisneededfrom thisCourtinordertoprovidefu11reliefunderthelaw,
isastatementofthe1awofCollectionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththeCollection
FinancialStandards(CFS)promulgatedbytheIntemalRevenueService.TheStandards,
bytheirownterms,areiusedtohelpdetermineataxpayer'sabilitytopayadelinquent
taxliability.Allowablelivingexpensesincludethoseexpensesthatmeetthenecessary
expensetest. Thenecessaryexpensetestisdesnedasexpensesthatarenecessaryto
provideforataxpayer'standlisorherfnmily's)healthandwelfareand/orproductionof
income.'' hlpr//- .irs.cove dividuals/collection-Finrcial-strdrds.ne CFS
encompassawiderangeoffacts,andthereisnoquestionthatthereisadueprocessright
toasserttheCFS factsandlistedamounts,inthecontextofaCollectionDueProcess
headngunder26USC Section6330.Buttowhatextentmaythoserightsbeinvoked,
andwhen,andwhatarerelatedrights,andwhenmaytheybeinvoked,inthecontextof
al1taxprocessincludingthetaxratesthemselves?Thatisthe1aw wllichisdeveloping.''
>-n-4
(13 of 83)
ThecomplexitiescanbeseenincomparativelytheenormousdocketintheTaxCourt
case9om whichNo.14-1042isappealed:TaxCourtCaseNo.013681-11Lwasfiledin
2011,andinvolvesonlymydemandthattheCommissioner,ortheAppealsOffice,orthe
TaxCourt,saywhatisthe1awoftheCollectionFinancialStandardsinconjunctionwith
CollectionDueProcess.Simpleenough-butithasgoneonforoverfouryears.The
answersarenotsimpleinthatCourt,andtheyarenotsimpleinthisone.
Thepresentcasescaseexempliesthesittlationwearein:aCommissioner,an
AppealsOffice,andaTaxCourtwhicharet
betweentwostools''-pushedbythelogicof
the casesto find a unification oftax proceduraland substantive Due Process,yet
engagingin contradictoryrulingsby aresistancetothatsamelogic,andengagingin
illegalactionstowhichtheya11admit,withrespecttodocketedTaxCourtcases.Why?
BecausetheCourtcan seethatthepetitioninNo.8888-13,from whichthisappealis
taken,ismadeupofnoneotherthantheReportwhichtheTaxCourtJudgeorderedfiled
inNo.013681-11L.Thus,thisCourtfacesthesamesubstantiveissuesinthisappealas
theD.C.CourtfacesinNo.14-1042.Aswillbeclearfrom theReportinNo.013681-
11L,IassertedthattheCollectionFinancialStandardsinconjunctionwithCollection
DueProcess,arethepromulgationbytheUnitedStatesofanindividuallyenforceable
entitlementinthegeneralpublic-afundamentalright,applicabletotheStatesthrough
theDueProcessClauseofU.S.Const.nmend.M'V-tothemaintenanceofCollection
FinancialStandm'dsfacts.AmongotherquestionstheCourtmustansweris:aretheitems
mentionedintheStandards(forexample,housing),treatedbytheUnitedStatesasfacts?
asgoals? aspolicies?Obviously,ifthereisanindividuallyenforceablerighttothe
(14 of 83)
maintenanceofhousingwithrespecttotaxation,thenhousingenjoysalevelofscrutiny
higherthantheminimum scrutiny accordedto itinLindsey v.Normet,405U.S.56
(1972).ApplythattotheotherfactsoftheCFS,andahostofothercasesmaintaining
thatvariousfactsoftheCFSenjoyonlyminimum scrutiny,cometobeseenashaving
beensupersededbythefdeveloping''1aw ofCollectionDueProcess.Indeed,wecallinto
questionthecontinuationoftheso-calledt
scrutin/'regimeofWestCoastHotelCo.v.
Parrish,30OU.
S.379(1937).ThefactsshowthatthereasontheUrlitedStatesputso
manyfactsintheCollectionFinancialStandardsisthattheUnitedStatesappliedtothem
thetestofWestVirginiaStateBoardofEducationv.Barnette,319U.
S.624(1943),with
itsfamoustestfordetermining whetherafactiswhatmightbecalled important.''
According to the Barnette Court,in atestwhich thisCourtisbound to apply,an
importantfactis
1. afactofhumanexperience
whichhistorydemonstrates
isunaffectedbyassaultsuponit.
Thatis,itisarobust,resilient,andrecurrentfactofhumanexperience. Such afact,
accordingtoBarnette,isanindividuallyenforceabledght,itenjoysahigherlevelof
scrutinythanminimum scrutiny,anditisremovedfrom thepoliticalprocess-wherethe
individualhasnodirectpoweroverit-intotheCourt,wheretheindividualhasabsolute
poweroverit. Thus,the tdeveloping''law of Collection Due Process istoward
recognizingthattheKscrutiny''regimeisover,andthatwearenow inthe<tmaintenance''
Constitutionalregime,whichhasonedoctrineonly:the1aw doesonlyonething-it
(15 of 83)
ARGUMENT
1. TheTax Courtcommitted reversibleerror in ruling thattherewaslack of
prosecution,becauseatrialcouldnothavebeenheld.
StandinginthepresentcaseisconferredbyUSC26Section6330(d)(1).USC26
Section6330(section6330')hasbeenthesubjectofmuchlitigationandspeculation.
(a)RequirementofnoticebeforeIevy
(1) Ingeneral-Nolevymaybemadeonanypropertyorlighttopropert
yofany
personunlesstheSecretaryhasnotitiedsuchpersoninwritingoftheirrighttoahearing
underthissectionbeforesuchlevyismade.Suchnoticeshallberequiredonlyoncefor
thetaxablepeziodtowhichtheunpaidtaxspecifiedinparapaph(3)(A)relates.
(2) Timeandmethodfornotice-Thenoticerequiredunderparapaph(1)shallbo(A)giveninperson;
(B)leftatthedwellingorusualplaceofbusinessofsuchperson;or
(C)sentbycert
itiedorregisteredmail,ret'
ul'
nreceiptrequested,tosuchperson'slast
knownaddress'
,
notlessthan30daysbeforethedayofthefirstlevywithrespecttotheamountofthe
unpaidtaxforthetaxableperiod.
(3) Informationincludedwithnotice-Thenoticerequiredunderparagraph(1)shall
includeinsimpleandnontechnicalterms-
(A)tth
eamountofunpaidtax;
(B)herightofthepersontorequestahearingduringthe30-dayperiodunderparagraph
(2
a
(
C)
);t
hnedproposedactionbytheSecretaryandtherightsofthepersonwithrespecttosuch
action,inoludingabriefstatementwhiehsetsforth-
(i)theprovisionsofthistitlerelatingtolevyandsaleofpropert
y;
(ii)theproceduresapplicabletothelevyandsaleofpropertyunderthistitle;
(iii)theadministrativeappealsavailabletothetaxpayerwithrespecttosuchlevyandsale
andtheproceduresrelatingtosuchappeals;
(iv)thealternativesavailableto taxpayerswhich could preventlevyon property
(includinginstallmentaveementsundersection6159),
.and
(v)theprovisionsofthistitleandproceduresrelatingtoredemptionofpropert
yand
releaseofliensonproperty.
10
(16 of 83)
(b)ltighttofairhearing
(1) lngeneral-lfthepersonrequestsahearinginwritingundersubsection(a)(3)(B)
andstatesthegroundsfortherequestedhearing,suchhearingshallbeheldbythe
lnternalRevenueServiceOfficeofAppeals.
(2) Onehearingperperiod
A personshallbeentitledtoonlyonehearingunderthissectionwithrespecttothe
taxableperiodtowhichtheunpaidtaxspecifiedinsubsection(a)(3)(A)relates.
Thehearingunderthissubsectionshallbeconductedbyanofficeroremployeewhohas
hadnopriorinvolvementwithrespecttotheunpaidtaxspecifedinsubsection(a)(3)(A)
beforethefirsthearingunderthissectionorsection6320.A taxpayermaywaivethe
requirementofthisparagraph.
(c)Mattersconsideredathearing
InthecaseofanyheadngconductedunderthissectionRequirementofinvestigation
Theappealsofficershallatthehearing obtain verificationfrom theSecretarythatthe
requirementsofanyapplicablelaw oradministrativeprocedurehavebeenmet.
(2) Issuesatheadng
(A)lngeneral-Thepersonmayraiseatthehearinganyrelevantissuerelatingtothe
unpaidtaxortheproposedlevy,including(i)appropriatespousaldefenses'
,
(ii)challengestotheappropdatenessofcollectionactions'
,and
(iii)offersofcollectionaltematives,whichmayincludethepostingofabond,the
substimtionofotherassets,aninstallmentaveement,oranoffer-in-compromise.
(
B)
rl
ngyliaabli
ty
Th
eUn
ped
re
so
nyi
ma
sl
oi
raiseatthehearingchallengestotheexistenceoramountofthe
underlyingtaxliability forany tax periodifthepersondidnotreceiveany statutory
noticeofdeficiencyforsuchtaxliabilityordidnotothenvisehavealaOpportunityto
disputesuchtaxliability.
(2) Basisforthedetermination
Thedeterminationbyanappealsofticerunderthissubsectionshalltakeinto
H-AM
(17 of 83)
consideration-
(A)theverificationpresentedtmderparagraph(1);
(B)theissuesraisedunderparapaph(2);and
(C)whetheranyproposedcollectionactionbalancestheneedfortheefcientcollection
oftaxeswiththelegitimateconcernofthepersonthatanycollectionactionbenomore
intnzsivethannecessary.....
(d)Proceedingafterhearing
(1) Judicialreviewofdetermination
Theperson may,within 30 daysofadetermination underthissection,appealsuch
detenninationtotheTaxCourt(andtheTaxCourtshallhavejurisdictionwithrespectto
suchmatter).
TheCourtofAppealsreviewsdenovothedecisionsoftheTaxCourt.See,forexample,
AndantechL.
L.C.v.Comm'
r,331F.
3d972,976(D.
C.Cir.2003).
isundisputedthattheinvocation oftheAppealsOoce'sjudsdiction is
ion6330(a)(B)speaksofS
ttherightoftheperson
exclusivelythetaxpayer's.26USCSect
torequestahearing.
''26USCSection7123(a)says:
(
)eEa
ly
o
preeaslcsrp
Ta
h
Sr
e
crr
ee
tf
ae
rr
yral
sht
ala
lpp
ibro
ece
pd
ru
or
ce
es
duresby which any taxpayermay requestearly
referralof1ormoreunresolvedissues9om theexaminationorcollectiondivisiontothe
InternalRevenueServiceOflceofAppeals.
Emphasesadded.
ItisalsoundisputedthatthisexclusivevoluntaryinvocationisextendedtodocketedTax
Courtcases.Thus,AppealsOffice'ssaystomethatsendingthedocketedTaxCourtcase
totheAppealsOfliceisKavoluntaryoption.''Appendixat36.However,theAppeals
Ofliceisnottellingthetruth,becausethelnternalRevenueManualrevealsanentirely
different,illegalprocedure.EVERY docketedTaxCourtcaseistransferredto,and
G8
(18 of 83)
evaluatedby,theAppealsOffice,whetherornotrequestedbytaxpayers.Taxpayerorno
taxpayer,within 10 daysofserviceofthepetition,theCommissioner
transmitgsl
docketed filestoAppeals.'' Manual8.4.1.6.2. Compoundingthelegalviolation,the
Commissionermaintains,intheManual(8.
4.1.4),thatoncethecaseisinAppeals,and
unlessproceduresrequirethecasebereturnedtoCounsel,(gtqheOffceofChiefCounsel
(ortheAssociateChiefCounselwithsubjectmatterjudsdictionoverthecaseorissues)
may,aher consulting with the Chief,Appeals and the appropriate Area Counsel,
determinethatacase,oranissueorissuesinacase,notbeconsideredbyAppeals.ln
suchasituation,Appealsforegoessettlementauthorityonthecaseorissues.''
Thismeansthatevenwhere,asinthepresent,thetaxpayerdoesnotparticipatein
any way,the Commissionerand the AppealsOffice colludeto determinewhatthe
outcomeofthecaseshouldbe,oreventhattheAppealsOfficeshouldnotparticipatein
thecase(theAppealsOfticeinthelattercase,violatingitsownlegalmandate).The
sectionsquotedaboveshow thattheCommissionerandtheAppealsOfficeconducta
dtrial''ofthecaseinwhichthereisnotaxpayerparticipation,where,asinthepresent
case,thetaxpayerhasnotrequestedthetransferofthedocketedTaxCourtcaseandhas
notparticipatedinanywayintheactivitiesoftheCommissionerandtheAppealsOftice
whilethecaseisintheAppealsOffice.
ltshould gowithoutsayingthatthesubsequentdtdal,''insistedonbytheTax
Coultviolatedeverylawrelatingtoatdal.Thecase1awshowsthatthe1awrelatingto
TaxCourttrialsisexactlythelaw theAppealsCourtsimposeonthemselvesinevaluating
(19 of 83)
whether,underthefactsofthecase,aConstitmionaltrialeouldhavebeenheld.lfnot,
thenthereisnolackofprosecution.TheCoxv.Commissioner,514F.
3d1119(10thCir.
2008)Courtsaid:
Thepurposeofsection6330...istoprovidetupayerswithsimilardueprocessprotection
tindealingwiththeIR.Sthat...theywouldhaveindealingwithanyothercreditor.''S.
Rep.No.105-174,at67.Centraltothatpurposeisthetaxpayer'sfundnmentalrighttoan
impartialappealsofficer,nodifferentthantherighttoanimpartialdecisionmakerinany
otherdueprocesscontext.SeeWithrowv.Larkin,421U.S.35,46-47(1975)($$gA1fair
tlcuna lsa aslcrequlrement-o-f-due-p'
ro- .
gati
- ------ whichadjudicateaswellastocourts.Notonlyisabiaseddecisionmakerconstitutionally
unacceptable but our system of law has always endeavored to preventeven the
probabilityofunfaimess.''
)(citationsandinternalquotationsomitted).
At1123.
ThesefactorsmustalsobepresentifaTaxCourttrialisheld-and1etusnotforgetthat
al1theviolationsoftheCommissionerandtheAppealsOfficewerejurisdictional,could
notbewaived,andmusthave,asamatteroflaw,beencorrectedsuaspontebytheTax
CourtincanyingoutitsArticlelmandatetobeaCourt.TheTaxCourtdidnotcorrect
theviolations,suasponteoronmotionoranyotherway,becausetheTaxCourtinsisted
oncolludingwiththeCommissionerandtheAppealsOffice.Thus,inthepresentcase
theTax Courtwasstarchamber. ThecourtacceptedtheSsblackbox''secrecyofthe
deliberationsoftheCommissionerandAppealsOftice,withoutevenawlittenconclusion
by the Commissioner and Appeals Offce. The Tax Courtdtlial''wasnecessarily
arbitraryandcapricious,inherentlybiased,unfairandprejudiced. ltwasnotatrial
becauseitcouldnot,Constitutionally,havebeenone.Thusthecasecouldnothavebeen
dismissedforlackofprosecution,becausethecasewasnotconductedina
14
(20 of 83)
ConstitutionalmannerbytheTaxCourt.Thisisadueprocesscaseinwhichlcouldnot
know whatfactstopresentinordertobringmyselfintocompliancewiththelaw,because
thecasewasillegallyevaluatedbytheAppealsOfticeandtheCommissionerwithoutmy
participationandwithoutmyknowingwhat1aw wmsappliedbythem towhatfacts.
lI. A trialcould nothavebeen heldbecause,oncethedocketed TaxCourtwas
illegallytransferredbytheCommissionertotheAppealsOffice,theAppealsOffice
waslegallyrequiredto-anddidnot- issueaNoticeofDetermination,responding
totheargumentsinthepetition.
Itisundisputedthatthe26USC6330(b)-4d)hearingiswhattheAppealsOffice
conductswithrespecttodocketedTaxCourtcaseswhichareillegallytransferredtoit.It
engagesinaSection 6330hearing,but0newhichviolatesthelaw. Accordingtothe
Manualitconsults the arguments ofthe Commissioner and determines the case:
tdconsultingwiththeChief,AppealsandtheappropriateAreaCounsel,detenninethata
case,oranissueorissuesinacase,notbeconsideredbyAppeals.''Notethatitmakesa
Gdeterml
-nation-'' Accordingtotheletterssenttome,givingussomemoreglimpses
intothisillegal
t
blackbox'headng,itusest<
the1aw andjudicialdecisionstoweighthe
facts,''itthenproceedstoStreview''thecase,andtoK
considerthefactsinEthe)case.
''
Appendixat7.Itarrogatestoitself
solesettlementauthority''(Appendixat22)inthis
illegalproceeding,andclaimsthatitisiseparatefrom-andindependentof-thedivision
oftheInternalRevenueServiceproposing theaction you disapeewithi''tinally,it
decidesitlafteritsillegalproceeding,itmust<t
referyourcasetotheOfticeofArea
Counseltoprepareyourcasefortrial.''Appendixat22.TheAppealsOfticetooka11
15
ON
(21 of 83)
theseactionsintheinstantcase.
InshorqintheillegaltransfersofdocketedTaxCourtcases,theAppealsOffce
subjectsitselftotherequirementsof26USCSection6330(b)-(d),onerequirementof
whichistheissuanceofaNoticeofDetermination.Thus,intheinstantcasetheAppeals
OfficewasrequiredtoissueaNoticeofDetermination.Notrialcouldhavebeenheld
withoutaNoticeofDetermination,becauseSection6330(d)(1)refersexplicitlytothe
NoticeofDetermination asbeingthatwhich theTaxCourtreviews. Thus,there
couldhavebeennofailuretoprosecute,becauseinspiteofmyrepeatedcallsforit(see
Appendix),andmyrepeatedmotionstotheTaxCourtnottoholdatdalwithoutaNotice
ofDetemri
nation(seeAppendix),theAppealsOfficewouldnotissueaNoticeof
DeterminationandtheTaxCourtwouldnotorderittoissueone.Accordingtothelaw,1
couldnothaveprosecutedtheTaxCourtcasewithouttheNoticeofDetermination.But
keeptherealissueinsight:theTax Court,theCommissionerandtheAppealsOftice
committedtheseillegalactsinordertoavoidhavingtosaythatthescrtltinyregimeis
over.ThisCourtmustsaythat.
111. A trialcould nothavebeen held because,in connection with theNoticeof
Determination,theAppealsOfficewaslegally required to-and did not-obtain
verification from the Secretary thattherequirementsofany applicablelaw or
administrativeprocedurehadbeenmet.
Section6330(c)1and(c)3areexplicitthattheAppealsOfficesecure,aspartof
thehearing,averificationthattherequirementsofanyapplicable1aw oradminstrative
procedttrehavebeenmet,andthattheNoticeofDeterminationnotethatthatveriscation
(22 of 83)
hasbeenobtained. SincetheNoticeofDeterminationiswhattheTaxCourtmust
considerinatrial,therecouldhavebeennotrialbecausetherewasnoverificationand
notationofavedfication.
lV.A trialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausethefailureoftheTaxCourttocompel
issuanceofaNotice ofDetermination prevented theCourtfrom ruling on the
merits.
ln response to aRequestforaCollection DueProcessHearing,theAppeals
OflcemustissueaNoticeofDeterminationansweringtheargumentsintheRequest.In
theinstantcaseytheAppealsOfticetookonitselftheresponsibilityofholdingaSection
6330CollectionDueProcessHearing.Intheillegaltransferofthedocketedcase,andfor
purposesofSection6330,thepetitionservedasthettRequest.''ForpurposesofSedion
6330,theletterofDecember11,2013,om theAppealsOfscetome,wasaNoticeof
Determination which illegally failed to respond tothe argumentsin thepetition,or
Slkequest.''Appendixat46.
Thus,theDecember11letterwas,intennsofThornberryv.Commissioner,l36
T.
C.No.16(2011)aC
sdisregarddetermination,''anunconstitutionalboilemlateresponse
which didnotmeettherequirementsofFifthAmendmentDueProcess.Thornberryis
preciselyonpointanddispositiveastowhethertheAppealsOfficewasrequiredtoissue
aNoticeofDeterminationrespondingtotheazgtlmentsinthepetition ftmctioningfor
purposesofthe1aw asaRequestforaCollectionDueProcessHeadng.lnThornberry,
theAppealsOfficerejectedaRequestwithoutrespondingtoanyofthearguments.The
TaxCourtfoundthistobeadueprocessviolation,andwhatismore,foundthattheTax
(23 of 83)
Court'sfailuretofmdjudsdictioninsuchacasewasaU.S.Const.art1(dd
Article1')
violation,itwasadefianceoftheTaxCourt'sjurisdiction,andtheTaxCourtcouldnot
violateitsownjudsdiction.TheTaxCourtisobligedto;ndjurisdictionwhenthereis
jurisdiction theprejudiceofitsownjudgescannotbeabasisfordenyingjurisdiction.
Afailuretot
indjudsdidionisanabuseofdiscretion,adueprocessviolation,andan
Article1violation.
The Thornberry courtmakesitcleazwhattheNoticeofDeterminationmust
include,andwhy:
theinstantcase,theNoticeofDeterminationqshouldprovide
T
,hthie
tific
otn
enhouusg
nfn
oo
rma
tia
ot
ni
o(
ai
ln
low thetaxpayertoidentifytheportionorportionsoftherequest
thatneedtobewithdrawn.A taxpayerwhoisnotifiedthataportionoftherequestis
basedonapositionidentifiedbytheSecretaryasfrivolousundersection67024c)can
easily identify theoffendingportion byreferencetothe Secretary'spublished list.
However,ataxpayerwhoisnotifedthatanunspecifedportionoftherequest,whilenot
based on a published frivolousposition,reflects a desire to delay orimpede the
administrationofFederaltaxlawsmaynotbeabletoidentifyandwithdrawthatportion
withoutfurt
herexplanation....gT)hesettlementofficerwasrequiredtomakeaspecitic
determination thatportionsofpetitioners'requestsforaheming eitherarebased on
positionslisted...orreflectadesiretodelayorimpedetheadministrationofFederaltax
laws.Theboilemlatedeterminationletterssenttopetitionersstated thattheAppeals
Oftice had determined that petitioners' disapeement was:a specifed frivolous
position''
,identisedbytheIR.
SinNotice2008-14(forNotice2008-14,refertothe1RS
Internetwebsiteathdp://- .
irs.gov/newsrooealicle/o..
id=l77slgsoo.
html).
Thornberryat22-23.
Andsureenough,1gotthatsameboilerplate:theDecember11letteronlysaysthatthe
AppealsOfficetried''todealwiththecase.ltdoesn'tsaywhatwasdttried,''andthis
Courtwillnotbeabletofindout.TheAppealsOfficedoesnotsaywhatitopposedin
thepetition,wllichftmctioned,intheAppealsOffice'sownestimation,astheRequest.''
18
(24 of 83)
Thus,theletterwasclearlyinviolationofThornberty.Thiswasrepeatedlypointedout
totheTaxCourtintheinstantcase,andtheTax CourtrefusedtoordertheAppeals
OfficetoissueaNoticeofDeterminationwhichcompliedwiththelaw.SeeAppendix.
Again,Section6330isclearthataNoticeofDeterminationisapartofwhatthe
TaxCourtreviewsinatrial. SincetherewasnoNoticeofDetermination,therecould
havebeennotrial. Sincetherecouldhavebeennotrial,therecouldnothavebeena
failuretoprosecute.
V.A trialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausetheinabilityoftheTaxCourttoruleon
themeritsprecludeda26USC 6330(d)(1)judicialreview ofdetermlnation,sothere

couldnotbeaIackofprosecution.
Again,Section6330isclearthattheTaxCourtisobliged,inthetrial,toruleon
the merits including the Notice ofDetennination. Since there wasno Notice
Determination,andnotrialcomportingwiththerequirementsofSection6330couldhave
beenheldwithoutit,theTaxCourtcouldnothaveruledonthemerits.Sinceadismissal
forfailureto prosecute isaruling on themedts,theOrderisunconstitmionaland
reversibleerror.
VI.A trialcouldnothavebeenheldbecausetheTaxCourtviolateditsownArticle
ljurisdiction.
TheAppealsOffcefunctionsasatdalcourtintheSection6330protocol.Its
NoticeofDeterminationisitsttopinion,''reversiblebytheTaxCourt.Thus,theAppeals
OfficehasaSection6330dutytotheTaxCourttoissueaNoticeofDetenuinationwhich
respondstoargumentsintheRequest,sothattheTaxCourtcanperform itsmandated
19
(25 of 83)
review function.WithoutresponsestoargumentsintheRequest,theTaxCourtcalmot
legallyftmctionandtherecanbenolegaltrial-thereisnothingtotry.TheTaxCourt
mustdecideiftheAppealsOfsceandtheCommissionercompliedwiththelaw.TheTax
Courtcannotperform itsArticle 1function to be a court,wherethe documentit
evaluates-the letterin this case--doesnotfulfllthe requirementsof aNotice of
Detennination. Norcan tllisCourtofAppealsfunction with respectto determining
WhethertheargumentsmadeintheRequestarevalid,forthesimplereasonthatitdoes
notknow whataretheAppealsOffice'sresponsestothem.Theentirecasecallsoutfor
remand to theTax Courtunderordersby tllisCourtwhich amountto continuous
monitoringoftheCommissioner,theAppealsOfficeandtheTaxCourttoseethatthey
perform theirdutiesunder avariety ofprovisions oflaw,including Section 6330,
Thornberty,Article1,anddueprocess.'ThefailureoftheAppealsOfficetoissueavalid
NoticeofDetermination,violateseveryoneoftheseprovisionsoflaw.TheTaxCourt
calmothaveruledthattherewasalackofprosecution,becausetheTaxCourtdidnot
havethefactsorlegalargumentsbeforeit-itdidnothavebeforeittheresponsesofthe
AppealsOfficetotheargumentsintheRequest.Itdidnothavebeforeitwhatwasinthe
(Cblackbox''comprisingtheillegaltransferofadocketedTaxCourtcasetotheAppeals
Officewithoutmypermission.
Why then,thisCourtwillask,doestheTax Courtconspirein theseillegal
transfers of docketed cases? Itisbecause the Appeals Ofsce subscdbesto the

Commissioner'sChiefCounselNotice,thenow notoriousCC-2012-003,inwhichthe
(26 of 83)
Commissionerrefusesto acquiescein Thornberry. Whatismore,theCommissioner

directs,intheManual,thattherecontinuetobedefancetoThornberryintheService's
practice.Checkthisout:
(07-25-20l2)
35.3.23.5.1
MotiontoDismissforLackofJurisdictionWhenCDPHearingRequestDeniedUnder
IRC63304g)
IRC6330(g)permitstheServicetodisregardanyport
ionofaCDPhearingrequestthat
containsfrivolouspositionsorreflectsadesiretodelayorimpedetheadministrationof
Federaltaxlaws.lnThornberryv.Commissioner,136T.
C.356(2011),theTaxCourt
heldthatithasjudsdictiontoreviewapetitionfiled9omthedenialofahearingunder
IRC6330(g).Counsel'spositionisthattheTaxCourtlacksjurisdiction,andattorneys
should continuetofllemotionstodismissforIack ofjurisdictionunderthese
circumstances. The attorney should obtain a copy of the hearing request and
independentlyverifythataheadngwasproperlydenied.lfdenialwasimproper,the
attorneyshouldstillseekdismissalbutstateinthemotionthatAppealswillbeinstructed
toofferahearingtoaddressanynon-frivolousissuesraisedintheCDPhearingrequest
and release any levies.Following thathearing,Appeals will issue a notice of
determinationthatwouldbesubjecttojudicialreview.
lfthereislitigation concerningwhetherthetaxpayerhasarightto ahearing,issues
involvingmotionstorestrainandcontinuedleviesmightalsoarise.Ifthetrialattorney
verifiesthatahearingwasproperlydenied,leviesshouldcontinue,andanymotionsto
restrainshouldbedefendedonthepoundthatthecourthasnojurisdiction.
Becausethisisadevelopingareaoflaw,consultwiththeOfficeoftheAssociateChief
Counsel(P&A),Branch3or4beforefilingamotiontodismissforlackofjurisdictionor
ifyouencounterthesittzationdescribedinthepriorparap-aph.
Emphasisadded.
Finally,in14-1042,theCommissionerisaskingthatIhornbertybeoverturned,although
inBuczekv.Commissioner,143T.
C.No.16(Oct.6,2014),theTaxCourtjustrefusedto
overturnit.ItshouldbeobvioustothisCourtthatThornberrystandsfortheproposition
thatthescrutinyregimeisover;ifitisnotobvious,thenthisCourtmustgobaektolaw
(27 of 83)
school.TheCommissioner,theAppealsOffice,andtheTaxCourtwereactingunderthe
CC-2012-003ordertodisobeythelaw,andtheTax Courtlcnew thattheywereacting
underthisordertoobeythelaw,andtheTM Courtknew thatthiswa.swhythecasewas
illegallytransferred.TheTax Courtdidnotsimply commitreversibleen-orin this
caso-itwasanactiveconspiratorwiththeAppealsOffceandtheCommissionerinthis
Ihornberryviolation.'Fhereisnodisputeaboutthefactsofthis.Why,thisCourtwill
ask,didtheTaxCourt1ettheAppealsOfficegetawaywithit? Whydidn'ttheCourtcall
theAppealsOfficeontheillegaltransfer? ItisalsotheSection6330dutyoftheTax
Courttoshow thattheCommissioner,theAppealsOfficeand theTaxCourtitself,
compliedwiththelaw.Condoningviolationsofthelaw,doesnotexempttheTaxCourt
from obeyingthelaw.Tllisshouldgowithoutsaying,butithastobesaidwhentheTax
Courtepegiouslyandpersistentlycormivestoviolatethelaw.TheCourtfailedtoorder
theAppealsOfticetorespondtotheargumentsintheRequestbecausetheCourtitselfks
de:dngIhornbcrry.Clearly,theTaxCourthasgottenintothebusinessofdeciding
whichaspectsoftaxation-om theratesonthroughtoassessmentandcollection-are
goingtobeusedto advancewhichpolicies. Butitdoesn'tknow whichpolicies. In
CustomStairsv.Commi
ssioner,T.C.Memo.2O11-155(2011),itforgivesfailuretomake
taxpaymentswhensuchpaymentsthreatenabusiness--cleadyanenforcementofthe
Collection FinancialStandards'policiesofEc
production ofincome.'' In Vinatieriv.
Commi
ssioner,133T.C.No.16(2009),theTaxCourtforgivesfailuretofiletaxreturns
whenthetaxpayerhasarighttohavealevylifted. ln Thornberry,theCourtmakes
respondingtoargumentsinaRequest,adueprocessrightandanArtioleldutyofthe
22
(28 of 83)
Courttorequire.TheTaxCourthasfoundthatthereisanindividuallyenforceableright
tolirlktrationinal1ofitsaspects,tothefactsoftaxpayers'lives.lnpmicular,thefacts
containedintheCollectionFinancialStandards,andaboveall,i.
nthepolicyofthose
Standards. Thereisnoquestion thattherearedueprocessrightsintheCollection
FinancialStandards,becauseeverygovenunentactionmustcomportwithdueprocess,
andasalreadystated,theStandards,includingitspolicy,maybeinvokedandlitigatedin
theTaxCourt-andthisisdoneconstantly.Andlookatthevastrangeofthatpolicy
(emphasisadded):
CollectionFinancialStandardsareusedtohelpdetermineataxpayer'sabilitytopaya
delinquenttaxliability.Allowablelivingexpensesincludethoseexpensesthatmeetthe
necessary expensetest. Thenecessaryexpensetestisdefined asexpensesthatare
necessarytoprovideforataxpayer's(andhisorherfamily'
s)healthandwelfareand/or
production ofincome. NationalStandardsforfood,clothingand otheritemsapply
nationwide.TaxpayersareallowedthetotalNationalStandardsamountfortheirfamily
size,withoutquestioningtlzeamountactuallyspent.
NationalStandardshavealsobeenestablishedforminimum allowancesforout-of-pocket
healthcareexpenses.Taxpayersandtheirdependentsareallowedthestandardamounton
aperpersonbasis,withoutquestioningtheamountactuallyspent.
Maximum allowancesforhousingandutilitiesandtransportation,knownastheLocal
Standards,varybylocation.Inmostcases,thetaxpayerisallowedtheamountactually
spent,orthelocalstandard,whicheverisless.
Generally,thetotalnumberofpersonsallowedfornecessarylivingexpensesshouldbe
thesameasthoseallowedasexemptionsonthetaxpayer'smostrecentyearincometax
return.IftheIRS detenninesthatthefactsandcircumstancesofataxpayer'ssituation
indicatethatusingthestandardsisinadequatetoprovideforbasiclivingexpenses,we
may allow foractualexpenses.However,taxpayersmustprovidedocumentation that
supportsadeterminationthatusingnationalandlocalexpensestandardsleavesthem an
inadequatemeansofprovidingforbasiclivingexpenses.
Emphasesadded.
(29 of 83)
Canthereinlaw beatliability''ora'sdelinquent''one,orevenalegalrateorassessment
or collection step,which does notharmonize with this policy,a policy which is
unquestionablyoneataxpayermayinvokeinhisorherdefense? Whatdiscretiondoes
theUnitedStateshave,insettingrates,orinassessmentorcollection,whentlzispolicy
maybeinvokedbytaxpayers?
'
FheillegaltransferofthedocketedTaxCourtwasjurisdictionalandcannotbe
waived. The Tax Courtdoesnothave discretion to defy the Tax Court's own
jurisdiction.TheOrderbasedonafndingofalackofprosecution,wassimplytheTax
Court'swayofcondoningtheillegaladsoftheAppealsOfficeandisreversiblebecause
itisaviolationoftheTaxCourt'sArt
icleljurisdiction.
24
>-uA
(30 of 83)
CONCLUSION
ThisCourtisunawareoftheextentoflegalviolationscommitted,asamatterof
practiceandmemorializedintheManual,bytheTaxCourt,theAppealsOffceandthe
CommissionerinCollectionDueProcess,conspiringtogethertoviolaterights.Docketed
TaxCourtcasesarealwaystransferredtoandactedonbytheAppealsOfticewithout
firstsecuringtaxpayerpermission.Thus,everydocketedTaxCourtcasewhichhascome
beforethisCourtonappeal,hasbeenillegallydecided.DidtllisCourtknow thepractice
ofillegaltransferwasgoingon? WhatdidthisCourtknow andwhendidthisCourt
know it? Theviolationof1aw bytheTaxCourtinthiscaseoccurredbecausetheTax
Courtisbetweentwostools''-understandingthattherearenew rights,butopposedto
thelogicalimplicationsofthoserights.
ThisCourtmusthaveahandinitdeveloping''thelaw ofthenew regime.Even
theCommissipnervantsthatthisissowhenitstatesthatthef'
undamentallaw,the
Constitutionalregime,is(sdeveloping.''So,Court,don'tbeAFRAID.Therehavebeen
severalConstitutionalregimes,andtogetitscomfortlevelupforthetaskitnow hasto
perform,thisCourtcan do no betterthan consultG.Edward White'sSildistoricizing
JudicialScrutiny,''http://law.bepress.coeuvalN s/uvapubliclaw/mol. The scnztiny
regimeisdead.Itcanneverberevived,eitherbytheTaxCourtCourt'sissuingblatantly
illegalrulingsasinthiscase,orbytheTaxCourtwhilzingorwringingitshands.This
sectionoftheBriefismisnamed,becausethereisnottconclusion''-thisappealisthe
beginning,nottheconclusion,ofthiscase.Getreadyforthelonghaul:asi
nitialrelie:
ThisCourtonremandmust:
25
(31 of 83)
saywhatisthelaw oftheCollectionFinancialStandardsinconjunctionwith
CollectionDueProcess,comprehendingtheproceduraldueprocesstendsofVinatieri,
Thornberry arld Custom Stairs,thesubstantivedueprocesspolicyandmandateofthe
CollectionFinancialStandardstomaintainwhatisnecessarytoprovideforataxpayer's
(andhisorherfamily'
s)healthandwelfareand/orproductionofincome'andthe
doctrine thattaxation does one thing only:it maintains important facts.
is
emphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthejudicialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis.''
Marburyv.Madison,5U.S.(1Cranch)137,178;
vacatetheOrderoftheTaxCourt;
ordertheTaxCourttoforthwithordertheAppealsOfficetofileandserve,within
20daysoftheTaxCourt'sorder,aNoticeofDeterminationinwhichtheAppealsOffice
respondstotheargumentsinthepetition;
orderme to file,within 20 daysofthe filing and selving oftheNoticeof
Determination,areportrespondingtothatNotice,andinparticularproposingfurther
ordersoftheAppealsCourttotheTaxCourt;
5.ordertheCommissionertofile,within20daysofthefilingandservingofmybrief,a
reportinresponse,andinparticularproposingfurtherordersoftheAppealsCourttothe
TaxCourt;and
ordermetofile,within5daysofthefilingandservingofthereportinresponse,a
replyreport,andinparticularproposingfurtherordersoftheAppealsCourttotheTax
Court.
From thefactsofthiscaseandNo.14-1042,itshouldbeobviousthattheTaxCourtthe
26
(32 of 83)
CommissionerandtheAppealsOfticehavetobekeptonashol'tleash,likelittledogs,
especiallyasthenew Constitmionalregimeisenforced.TheCourtmustnotforgetthat
Vinatieri and Thornberry are about the Tax Courtcorrecting its own errors in
ilmumerablecases.TheseerrorsextendtothisCourtaswell.TaxpayerrightsinSection
6330 Collection Due Processare completely circumvented by an illegalconspiracy
between theChiefCounselandtheAppealsOffice:by meansofillegaltransfersof
docketedcases,andwithoutparticipationbythetaxpayer,theAppealsOfliceandChief
Counseldecidewhatissuesthecasepresents,andwhetherornottoaddressthoseissues.
This(tprocedure''isanobviousviolationofdueprocess,aSection6330violation,aswell
asanArticlelviolation,andaThornbelyviolation,sincenoNoticeofDeterminationis
issuedbytheAppealsOfficewhenthecaseis(returned''toChiefCounsel.
Butthereismoreon thispoint;notethatsinceeverydocketedcasegoestothe
AppealsOffice,everydocketedcaseappealedtothisCourthasanon-waivableviolation
committedbytheUnitedStates,andnotaddressedbythisCourt..
Furthermore,thedispositioninevelydocketedTaxCoul'tcaseisnow tlzrownintodeubt
because,virtuallyfromthemomentoftiling,taxpayerl
'
ightshavebeenviolated(andthe
violationsarejurisdictionalandcal
motbewaived)bytheillegalactionsoftheChief
CounselandtheAppealsOffice.SothisCourtmustalsoconfronttheseproblems:
1.Whichofitsownordersanddecisionsisitgoingtovacate?
2.WhatdidthisCourtknow ofthisillegalpracticeofSsreferring''docketedTaxCourt
casestotheAppealsOfficewithouttheauthorizationoftaxpayers?
3.WasthisCourtawareoftheagreementsbeingmadebytheAppealsOffceand
27
(33 of 83)
theChiefCounselwithouttheparticipationoftaxpayers?
4.Andifitwasawareofthispractice,whyhasnottheCourtofAppealssuasponte
putanendtothepractice?
TheintentofConpessinSection6330isthattheTaxCourtnotsubstituteitsresponseto
argumentsintheRequest,fortheresponseoftheAppealsOfficetoargumentsinthe
Request.TheintentofConpessinSection6330isthattheClliefCounselnotsubstitme
itsresponseto argumentsin theRequest,fortheresponseoftheAppealsOfficeto
argumentsintheRequest. TheintentofCongressinSection6330isthattheAppeals
Officeremainindependent,andthatthisindependenceisalegaldutytheAppealsOffice
owestoitself,totheChiefCounsel,totheTaxCourt,andtothetaxpayer.Thisdutyhas
beenrecorizedbytheCommissionerhimself:slndependencef'
rom otherIR.
Softicesis
critical for Appeals to accomplish this important mission.''
hp://- .irs.covdndividualssndependence-of-Appeals.Itshouldgowithoutsayingbutcannot,givenCourterrorswithresped toCollectionDueProcess-thattheviolation
oftheAppealsOfficeinthiscaseisalsoaviolationof26USC Section63201).
ConpesstookspecificstepstoensurethatAppealsreview wasindependent,bothin
realityandinperception.OnemainguarantorofindependenceisSection632009,which
requiresthataCDP hearingbebeforean impartial''Appealsemployee. When the
AppealsOfticeallowsitselftoevaluatecaseswithoutcomplyingwithdueprocess,itis
attemptingtoenforceaprejudice.AnAppealsOfficeemployeewhodisplaysprejudice,
isnotanEsimpartial''Appealsemployee.Thefactsshow thattheentireAppealsOflceis
thisemployee,''andsotheAppealsOfficecannolongerftmctionexceptunder
(34 of 83)
supervisionoftllisCourt.
TheAppealsOffce'slegalerror,compoundedbytheTaxCourt,isaboutthe
legalintegrity oftaxation,andthatiswhyfu11reliefinvolvesexplorationofthedue
processcomponentofeveryaspectoftaxation,from rate-settingthrough tax trialon
throughcollection.
/'
%1 ;
5i
?
'C
'
S
y
-7
1
.(
. . tl
ilk
t'
,
;
j
'
hkk'
9 I
JohnRysknmp x-l
1677ArchSt.
Berkeley,CA 94709
x
-.--.
-.
-.
'
1
.
:
(510)848-6898
philneozool@yahoo.
com
November18,2014
29
-.
-
-------.
- .
.
-.. -.------.
(35 of 83)
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEWITH RULE32(a)
CertmcateofComplianceWithType-volumeLimitation,
TypefactRequirements,andTypeStyleRequirements
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed.R.App.P.
32(a)(7)(B)becausethisbriefcontains8665words,excludingthepartsofthe
briefexemptedbyFed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
ThisbriefcomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(5)
andthetypestylerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(6)becausethisbriefhas
beenpreparedinaproportionallyspacedtypefaceusingMicrosoRWordTimes
New Roman12.
DatedNovember18,2014.
'
)(I
-/
--?
h(
-.
,
'b
$
lt h
-l '
..
j'
u---.-'
.
?
:
yku'(W- .
JohrtRysknmp
1677ArchSt.
Berkeley,CA 94709
(510)848-6898
philneozool@yahoo.
com
30
(36 of 83)
CERTIFICATE OFSERWCE
1certifythat2copiesappellant'soperlingbriefwithappendixwereserveduponappellee
byU.S.mail,first-classpostageprepaid,tohisattonzeyofrecordonNovember18,2014,
addressedasfollows:
CurtisPett
U.S.DepartmentofJustice
TaxDivision,AppellateSection
PO Box502
Washington,DC20044
%$
.
!jy/
7
h
/
yjj .L
y
, .
y
.
'y
.
Jolm Rysknmp -1677ArchSt.

Berkeley,CA 94709
(510)848-6898
philneozool@yahoo.
com
DatedNovember18,2014
jy
'
r/
.
(37 of 83)
AppealNo.14-73059
UNITED STATESCOURTOFM PEALS
FORTHENWTHCIRCUIT
RMOELLYcc.aEWYl
ERV
.CLE
ERKD
U.s.coURToFAPPEALS
N0V 122011
FILED
Petitioner-Appellant,DGGKETED
nATE
COMMISSIONER OFTNTEM ALREVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.
OnAppeal9om theUnitedStatesTaxCourt
No.8888-13(Nega,J.)
APPENDIX
Jolm Ryskamp
1677ArchStreet
Berkeley,Califonlia94709
(510)848-6898
plilneozool@yahoo.com
lk1
TIb(
*vM
(38 of 83)
U:TXW V'
W V14-1114 Document#1504649
RECEIVED
SEP122013
08:30PM
Fi
led:07/24/2* zs> agXFTAKX OURT
RMM
F
S+l
5
J
eFILED
sEP122013
JOHNHENRY RYSKAMP
Peti
ti
onerts)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,
Respondent
MOTION TO VOID NOTICE SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(39 of 83)
F711ed.
'0712412O14 Pa()t?1
-C
-7
-r.
)F-:'
.;
USTAx-coBr se#14-1114 Doctlment#1504649
RECEIVED
SEP122013
UNRTEDSTATESTu COURT
08:30PM
DocketNo.8888-13
MOTIONTOVOIDNOTICESEW ING
CASEFORTRIAL
JohnRyskamp
Petitioner,
(Rules38and131)
CommissioneroflnternalRevenue,
Respondent.
TlaismotionisbeforetheChiefJudge,
A1lthedocp'mentsandpleadingsinthiscaseareincozporatedhereinbythisreference.
Rule131states:tEachcase,whenatissue,wi11beplaceduponacalendarfortrialin
accordance'GIIIRule140.TheClerkshallnot'
tfA'thepadiesoftheplaceaudtimeforwitichthe
calendarisset'' Rule38Mates:RA caseshallbedeemeda:issueupontheftlingoftlw
Mswer....''TheNoticeSettingCaseforTrial,acopyofwhichisattachedandincozporated
hereinbyiisreference,wasservedSeptember12,2013.
TheanswerintheinstantcasewasfiledonJtme21,2013. Subsequenltothat,the
Commissionerfiledacopyofbothmypetitionan.
dhisRnnwerwitllthePhiladelplliaCamplzs
AppealsOffceandbothdocumentsareoninthelileofthePhiladelphiaCsmpusAppeals
Office.Inaddhion,theCommissioner,inviolationofthelaw,orderedtheAppealsOfticeto
regardthepetilionasaRequest(which itisnot,forIhavenotrequestedaCollectionDue
Processhearing),refusetoholdaColleetionDueProcesshearing%4threspecttotheso-ealled
Request,whichtheComnnissionerhastreatedanddoestreatasaRequest,andwhichtheAppeals
1
2
(40 of 83)
USCACase414-1114 Document#1504649
Filed:07/24/2014 Page20Of63
Offke,attheorderoftheCommissioner,haskeated and doeskeatmsaReques't. The

CommksionerorderedtheAppealsO/cenottoconsideranyargumentmadei.
neitberthe
RequestortheCommssioner'sownans-wer.TheseactionsweretakenbytheCommissioner
puzsuanttoCC-2012-003,deny1gtllisCourt'sjudsdiction.
AccordingtotheCommissioner,forpuzposesofFilhAmendmentDueProcessand
'--lll
mrn-bery-tlre-pelition'
'
-f
'
.0hearing.OnJuly30,2012,theAppealsOocewrotetometlzatithadHreceived''theso-called
RequestytinthePhiladelplliaCmnpusAppealsOftice.'*
AsofthedateoftllismotionaSeptember12,2013,theAppealsOfikeisplvportedly,but
notactually,consideringtheRequest.Nevvrtheless,theCourtwentaheadarldissuedtheNotice
SetdngCaseforTdal.Althoughrepeatedly1lb,roughttotheCourt>sattention,theCommissioner,s
illegalconducthmsnotbeenactedonbytheCotut
Accordlgto Thornberzy v,Commt
:
?
ssionerintheCotut,sOrderofApril19,2011,
Gt
section6330(g)requirestheAppealsOfficetodeterminethespecitk portl
onsofpeti
tioners'
requestforahearingthatareregazdedasfrivolousorreflectadesizetodelayorimpederhe
admintationofFederaltaxlaws,leavingforhearingonlytlzelegitimateandbonafideissues
petitionersraised.TheAppealsOfficehasnotyetdonethis''andnonoticesettingcasefortI'iZ
wasissuedbeforetheCotu'tissueditsorderofApril19,theCourtTequiringtheAppealsOflke
todetezminethespecificationporticmsoftlzepetitilm Rbeforetakingfurtheractionhztiziscase.''
AcopyofthedocketinThornberzyisattachedheretoandincorporaledhezeinbythisreferenceu
AsofSeptember12,2013,theAppealsOYceha.
snotdetermined,illtlzeinstantcase,the
speciscportionsoftheRequestthatarerqgardedasfrivolousorreflectadesiretodelayor
impedethearlmirlistrationofFederaltaxlaws,leavingf0rhendngonlythelegitimateandbona
(41 of 83)
USCACase#14-1114 Doctlment$61504649
FiIed:07/24/2O14 Pa(
)f
?)?1r':ft'
9'
.
!
.
5deissuesraised in theRequest. 'FheCourthasissued theNoticeillegallyasaFih

AmendmentDueProcessandArticleIN'
iolationattempttoevadestafngtllelaw.Notethatthe
Courtmadenomentionoftb.
eAppealsOoce'sJuly30letter,althoughitwasrepeatedlybrought
- -'
--
totheattentionoftheCourt.
ForFifl:
hAmendmentDueProcesspurposesandThornberrypurposes,thecaseisnotSat
issue''wheretheCommlssioner asteate ape onan answer-acs-a-Aequest-for'a'ro '
DueProcesshearingand170ththeCommissionerandtheAppealsOfficeaz'etreatingtheRequest
a.
spendingatthetimetheCourtissuesaNoticeSettingCaseforTrial.Thtks,noNoticemaybe
issueduaderRules38,131oranyotherprovisionoflaw.Undertlwsefacts,itisanabuseof
discretion,aFift.
hAmendmentDuePrccessviolation,anArticle1violation,aSection6330
violationacda'
l-honabeny'violation,fortheCourttoissueaNoticeSettingCaseforTrialand
theNoticeisaDisregardDetermination.Theso-calledSNotice''hasbeengivenitslegaltitteon
theattachedcopy.
Where the Tax Courtpurportsto actas the Appeals Ooce,issuing Disregard
Determinations,thenittakesonitselftheConstitutionaldutytodeterminethespecificportions
oftheRequest(alsokrlow'nastlleanswer,intlteinstantcase)thatitregardsasfrivolousor
retlectadesiretodelayorimpedetheAdministrationofFederaltaxlaws,leavingonlythe
legjtimateandbonafideissuesraisedintheRequest.lnissuingtheNotice,thisColm ha.
s
decidedtotreattheRequestnow onGleinthePhiladelphiaCnmpusAppealsOffice,tasifithad
notbeensubmitted.''Then,alsounderThorzlben'
y,itmustltmakeaspecifcdeterminationthata
portionofatmxpayer'srequestforahearingeitherisbasedonapositionlistedinNotice200814...orreflectsadesiretodelayorimpedetheadministrationofFederaltaxlaws.'*Thisiswhat
(42 of 83)
USCACase#14-1114 Document#1504649
comesefthisCourtactingintemperately:vithoutconsideringthelegalissuesinvolvedinthe
actionsoftheCommissioner.
nereforeImoveforanordervoidingtheNoticeSettingCaseforTrialan.
dmnkinga
stmementbindingontheCommissioner,ofthe1aw oftheCollectionFinancialStandazdsin
conjunctionwit.
hCollectionDueProcess.InitsintemperateactofissuingtheNotice,thisCoun
11n(
z
5lre
fhar-a*m.pl.
inntnrll
'
tq-lfa-n--constitudn'
nn14n'nlatinns,'
Whe - '
.f
end?
r.
-' l
Am.
.<
c
lz ,
JohnRysksrnp
-
1677ArchSt.,Berkeley,CA94709,(510)843-6898
pMl
neozool@yahoo.
com
Dated:September12,2013
'-
t
illrtt
(43 of 83)
F1Ied:07I24/2014 Pa('
Ji
:
?2-;
)t
'
35
,':
'.'
i
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

September12,2013
4x
g>+
,wxe.
K
5
.
? St
#
w
*
iolmHeN Ryskamp,
P<itioner
888:-13.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE.
Rospondent
TrialAt:
Room2-1408.Fe.
dm lBuilding
MdU.S.Collrthouse
4
oal
dc
ei
n
u0
e2
S5
a0
nG
Cr
n
MGat
CeAAv9e4n1
,
j a. u
l
A N,
''
4
,
:
qyyyyyyyy
h,
sp.
0
k
1
I
.
'IYepaztie.sareherebynotifiedtbatthiscasekssetfortrialatttteTzialSessionbeginninga!1-0.:K AM on
4.TlzecalendarforthatSsionVIIbecalledatthatdntnandtime,andthepartir.sare
fernarv10.2
Mo
n
d
a
y
x
.01
expected-tobepresenta
ndtobepreNcdtotrytkecaase.Youralhxretoappearmayrexnltin(lismimqnlofthecase
andentzyofdeoisionagninKtyou.
TlteCotutwiEsetthetimeforeachtri
nlattheendofthecalendarcall.Insettingtrialti
mestheCourt
attemptstoaccommodatetllepare .buttheSnaldeterminxtionoftrialtimesreslsint
lzeCourtys(Iiscretion.
YourattentioniscalledtotlzereqllirementssetoutintheStandingPrelrinlOrderthatisservedwit
hthjs
notix incllldimgtllefollowingt
stipulationofFacfx IftlleC'
aKcammtbesettled,theparlies.beforetrial,mustagreeinwritisgtoall
factsandalldonnmentsaboutwhichthereshouldbenodisagreement.Thestipulationsigledbyallparties
sltouldbesubrnitedattllecal
endarcallonFebruaw10.2014.
ExchanzeofDtmuments.NoIaterfhqnJanwqzy27.2014.eachpartymastprovidetothecGera11the
documentsormAerialsthqtthepartyexpectstooferintoevidenccat* 1andth1arenotincludedinthe
stipuladoa
PrefrialMemoradumandWitn- Idenfmcation.NolaterthanJanuarv27.2014yeachpart
ymust
m
e
o
n
t
h
e
o
t
b
e
r
p
'
t
r
t
y
a
n
d
f
l
l
e
a
q
r
e
t
r
i
a
l
m
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
t
z
m
t
h
a
t
a
m
o
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
t
l
k
i
n
g
s
y
i
d
e
n
t
z
e
s
t
h
e
w
itnoses
thatthepartyintendstocalltotestlfyattrial.
nepaeesshouldcontacteachotherpromptlyandcooperatefullysothatthenervtuazysteps= l)etaken
tocomplywiththeset'eqttirementq.Ycurfailuretocooperatemayalsoresultindhmissaloftheca,
seandentry
ofdecisionagainstycu.
llobertR.EhiTrolio
ClerkoftllcCouzt
SERVEDSep122013
(44 of 83)
IrteroxlRevenuese- ce
:
A# gO c'e
6
R%
eoA
mr
'5236t
h.delp,h P
.Phl
:
.
)... ' .....'' .'.
DepartmeotoftheTrem ry
w*1
G'(
*
k
'
1*106...p. .
'
.,
. cg.
.
v
.
e
xag
..
--wge
uer
.
.
.. .
--
.
w.,G.
t.l .'f. v*4
oo
53
s.6
s:
u'
.w.z
lv
JORNM NAYRYSKAMP '<
..
1<77ARc.itST
Bxp'R'RIZYeA 9*@9
'
HN Rrk.=p
:
. .. .
.
DJ.
* 30.2013
>
z15.e1-14r
Fxxx-h-.
.
'.
' . .'
z1- z-z75:
*1.x
#-W0.>
W2
Vk
$ '
>
.
<r*.,J%--/:w,
.''
' :
.
Ap. rec
ive--m'
utn>
-v.,
.forcuni
d.-f
ionin
'.
/laddplt
k
i.caupwAppeauosce.
Wh
We
We
*taxe,
-'
Ap-eW*
sls aS
zn
aief:ro
mzD
anmd*
idndakp?e@
nw
dmt
ofRG
,ttzln
R.
ev=i
e.
%ervfce(IP.
S)ofsce
tntingtNeaV
tl
zatyoudisa#/wi
th.We% ewandr 1%dlsput
esi
nafai
*nd
'
'n b
i
m
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
m
x
n
y
i
s
i
n
g
v
t
h
e
l
W
a
n
d
j
t
z
i
d
a
l
'
d
e
d
s
t
o
n
s
t
o
d
1t
h
e
f
a
c
t
s
.
O
u
r
retiews
m ==:.11ycondu bytelephono:mail.lfyoupreferaf t&facerv'vfewatie
Aapye
loofto'sylo
r
resid=c
bxec
lm-nr-k
dara
uty
ow
thlin
d
sfrosmomc
tlieeac
-eu
tt
cwe
wie
llo
tr
mn
youa
zdc
se
opth e1
p+rou
ps
rik
aa
te
Apwi
ma
sl5
seldomceforn-nid 'on..'N'
:--j-** v'
eC'
l
Wh
ceaweErx
wea
wf
iY
no
n
'u
wqk
yatteznptoC
c'
ot
ntadmumsquickV
ly'
asN iblm.
We 'nnnnsidertim
fad'
sinytsrcaseudtryto wet:edz
-spute.weniayaskFoforad 'nnal
Gonutiontekplihorsu :iiffocna:ohinyourrzle.
'I
Tfotzrofficedetermlnestlzatyou .ethelRSxleo;Iaw>uiresachargeforin'.,est
mtil
youpayelemuotmt8<uoweIn Tfieamoustyouoweiadudopenaltio, Yonal

pealty.e6imts.mygavr'nuldi1n'ybu##infull.Ifytmowedrpotendallywetax,
interwtaaeor> tewyoumiy eapaymentu'
anytime;
WbatYouC.wm)
.
l
J
.
Ifyou.aremskedto.Adadd.ido ' infomlafo
ypr
omp
ly.
' t
.m*l
q
.
.
. lfy6uwLGt:o'stop.oiMI
''A idte...n'y':
ait&ano/the.
g
jjlanced
'u%yo
'ucatt
sendt'
axpaAentstothk ' so ceW'
kkingyof;o.
w.
.' Ifyousaveque onsabouttheApp s.pressorhow8ou= prYareforyour
hemdngr.
nr'
umtmicate*1t11i:eXon 'PeruonnIistd aMvek
'
(45 of 83)
@ Aaattomey,CgrtifedPublicA=mtant()ramrsone=lle topradiObefore
themSmayrves=tyou.HowAer,mumustsubmitaFo= 2< ,Powerof
Arorle.yorDetl
aradon'ofRepresentatve,otsimilarwrittmauthnriyation.Ifyou
'ne moteinfo-atioaalmtthezeqlrementqfokxvrmtlgtaxpayea ycu
ma
ybbYnacopyofTreasurya lrl
mentCimular230availableatmostIRS
omcea.
. l
fthelRSma11u alegalnotic todisallowmurclaimvyouOouldmo/tormur
dmdlinefor511:S'G
AdditkmalIxformaqon
Vsitourwebsiteatwww.irs.gov/appealsforadditionalinformadon.
AtthecondasionoftheAppealsprocsryoumaybeaskedtoparticimteinanAppOls
customcsatisfadionsurvey.YorpartiulpationisvoM taryandthesurveywillnotask
forv onalorrmnndalinformationofanyklmd.There:1:1,
.softhesurvey*11be'rwlto
improvetheAplxalsprocosandservicetoo custcmers.
Sizm- ly.
t
VemddaSmders
Ape s'remnManager
Enclosures:
Publication4227WdcometoAppeals
Publi=don4167IntrvudiontoAl'z- tiveDisputeR= lmlon
No6ce1016'HowtoStopIntelvstonyourAc unt
(46 of 83)
Vle
v?x
et
go
We
'
tV(u
Vr)4 Document#1504649
Fil
ed:07/24/2014 Pagesjqotj/a
j
()0tohhDocketInquirvHnmq.DocketNumber.lndiyidualPartyName,CoporateNameKeyword
DocketInquiry -lndex
DocketNo.:000580-10L
Caption:JamesBruce& LauraAlmeThornberry
Peti
ti
onrjgoamsl/kTuJ
l
BarNo:PROSE
No:1
BarNo:MJ221
Rles
Jp
oe
ol
nD
de
tCMa
ouhnasnel
.n
Mc
-. j
o:2
/<:
f/ya(1
400w.Bayskeet
suite240
charlesBennettFos
Jacksonvf
le,p
t322c2
fr
nuzzt
zzz,
zl.
z-k'
z.
y.z.'
r'
.
'
n',
v.,
x..to,
t
.- . *SeetheAbbreviationsListfordefinitionsofecrtain
e
t:'(
m
.
.
r abbreviation.sonthedocltetrecord
ac
r
#..f
x
, -L
.I,
- '.
..,
tiestoradditionalpartiesandatlornel'sinacasc
. SecPar
Ut
ltophdex,Parties.Participants
Max.ResultsperPage:25
Filed
FilingsandProceedings
01/06/201OPETITIONFiled:FeeWaived
Page1of2 -'> >>

Akfa
bsa
os
tatus sewed oocumeA
je
R0:/12/20lN/A :vNxA
01/12/20100RDERforFilingFeeon02/26/10.
B0t/l2/2Ol0(XjewJ
01/25/2010REQlJESTforplaceofTrialatTnmpa,FL
801/26/201ON/A
MOTION byresp.todismissforLOJwxxhs. op.o (jxypoyxj)
02/24/2010(C/S2/23/10)
02/25/2010APPLICATION byPetnforwaiveroffllingfee&GR 0scgzojjlscyslacjgx/a
affdavit
NOT
EofFilingmot.todismiss.Obj.tobe
stcagxjcx/x
02/26/2010sled;IC
321d/l0.
05/24/20l0RESPONSEbypetr.tomot.todismissforLOJ.
N/A
/
O6/02/2010(
OCR/S
D3
E/
R18t
h1a0t)caseisaasigrledtoJudgeDawson.
06/10/2010O
IIDERResp.by7-l9-10Klereplytoresponseto
mottodismlss.
806/03/20lgview
-j
B06yj!/,cjgj
wi
ewy
07/20/2010REPLYbyResp.toPet'sresponsetomotto
dismiss.wcx
s.(C/S7/19/10)
/19/2010RESPONS
.E.bypet.toresp.replytoresponseto
N/A
R0826/201N/A
04/192011T.C.OPmION,JudgeDawson136T.C.No.16
(Anappropdateorderwillbeissated)
04/20/2011ORDERpetr.by5/20/11fllereport.Resp.mot.to
B04/jpaajjjvj
ewy
st
pawx!jryj
ewg
t.t
dismissisdenied.
P1O1NSEbypels.tocourtsozderdated
05/18/20l1RE
4/2S
0/
.
$
E
t
'
R05/31/20lIN/A
06/09/201IANSWER(C/S6/9/2011).
hosr//- .usu coud.govrstcDocknqrockerimiay.cpx?DocketNo=loooos8o
9/125013
'
(47 of 83)
t
loei7l
jcllzi
')4 Document#1504649
Fi
led:07/24/2014 Pagt
'
)/
-a
7
ge
(
72
f6
b?
'2
RDERpet/s.by7/11/11Slearesponsetothis
06/15/2011O
order.
07/11Q011RESPONSEbypetrs.tocourt'sorderdated
6
/15
/11
.(
Cn/
S
7s/5
/
11
)
OR
DE
R
p
r
t
i
e
b
y
9
30/11filereports.Cmseis
08/03/2011remandedtoresp,s.o/oc
eofappeals.
806/17/201lf
'
Vkwj
sca/ts/xlIwiuw)
09/29/2011REPORTbyresp.w/Exlnq.(C/S9/29/11)
N/A
10/06/201IORDERresp.by12/5/11ftlefllrtherreports.
B10/11201lWicwq
10/07/201IREPORTbypet.(C/S9/29/11)
N/A
12/05/201IREPORTbyresp.(C/S12/5/11)
N/A
12/06/20110RDERresp.by3/31/125lefartherste
atusreport.
Bl2/07/201llview'l
17QTmnRTbyTeqp.(CV /23/12)
N/A
04/03/20l2ORDERtimewitbinwhichresp.shallisguea
stp/aaaolztvjewj
determl
.nauonfsextendedto7/3/12.
Page1of2
>i
>'
Q
GeneratedbyBlackstone...TheJudicialSystem
C)2013A1lRightsReserved,CMCSoftwrare
TocontacttheWebm%terfortechnicalissuesnrproblemswilhtheWebsite,sendane-mailto
webnnasterettstaxcourt.jtov.Foryourinformation,nodocumentscanbeIiledwiththeCourtatthis
oranyothere-mailaddress.Fora.
llnou-teclmicalquestions,includingprocedural.case-related,or
generalquestionsabouttlzeCourqyoumustcontacttlzeOoceoftheClerkoftlleCotulat(202)521
rbyposfalmailatU.S.TaxCourt,400SecondStreet,N.W.,Washington,DC20217.
-0700o
Attenkon:OoceoftheClerkoftheCourt.
hos:
//v.
lve
ustucoMe
govxstcDocklnqrocketDiz#ay.aspx?DockeGo=loooos8o
9/12/2013
u
wYA
(48 of 83)
USCACase//14-1114 Document#1504649
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
SEP252013
*%OESN+tn
N o=l
WC
*
,
z
e
'
.
D
vw
*
USTAXCOURT
eFILED
SEP252013
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Peti
ti
onerts)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
SUPPLEM ENT TO M OTION TO VOID

NOTICE SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL
SERVEDOct182013
(49 of 83)
US
(
6-g:$.
4-1114 Document#1504649
RECEIVED
SEP252013
04:27PM
JolmRyskamp
Peti:oner,
UNITEDSTATESTu COURT
DocketN0.8888-13
SW PLEMENTTOMOTIONTOVOID
NOTICESETM GCASEFORTRIAL
(Rules38and131)
CommissionerofInternalRevenuey
Respondent.
l
TlaismotionisbeforetheChiefJudge.
A11thedocumentsandpleadingsinthiscaseareincorporatedhereinbythisreferezme.
TheDenialoftheMotionforSllmmaryJadgmentis,forFifthAmendmentDueProcess
purposes.asecondDisregardDeterncination;itisidentifedassuchilzthispleading,anda'
dached
heretoandincorporatedhereinbythisreference.ItwasissuedinvioladonoftheCourt'sdutyto
ruleonjudsdiction.TheillegaltransferoftltiscasetotheAppealsOoceisacontinuingFifth
AmendmentDueProcessvioladon. Thefactsshow the individualincometnx ratesare
unconstitutional.TheCommissionerhaswaivedoppositiontothepetitionandthemolionfor
sllrnmar.yj
udpnentabyillegallytransferringthecasetotheAppealsOoce.TheCourtisacting
inviolationofArticleIindenyingtheMotionforSurrtmaryJudr entajustasitacted
violationofArticleIinissuingtheNotice,whenitltnew inbothcasesthatthecasehadbeen
illegallytansferredtotheAppealsOce.TheDenialtherefore:mntions,forConstimtional
purposes,asasecondDisregardDetennination,ratifyingtheCommissioner'sillegalconduct.
1
12
*%
(50 of 83)
Filed:07/24/2014 Page30o63
neCo< ilNo.013681-1IQ hasfotmdthattheindividualincometaxratesare

unconstitutional,butdueto outsidepressure,itwillnotruleonthemotionforsummary
judgmentiztthatcase. ThatfailuretoruleisazzongoingFifthAmendmentDueProcess
violakon,andforpumosesoftheinstantcase,isaDisregardDetermination.
WhyistlzeCourtactingmsab= choftheIntemalRevenueService?Judgethree.strike
tbme.Yetanoieridiotjudge.Doyouseriousl
/th wl etyougetawaywt yourleg
ctivity?Tiiinkagain.
1
J Ryskam
1677ArchSt.;Berkeley,CA94709,(510)848-6298
phil
neozool@yahoo.
com
Dated:September25a2013
- --
Gq
(51 of 83)
AXCOURT
Jb*1P.
S>+ USTe
FILED
.
> ,.x%
RMM %
'
p 5! sEP12zg!3
*
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
SEP122013
03:13PM
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Peti
tionerts)
ELKTRONICALLYFILED
DccketNo.0688-13
Respondent
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
tt
ot
?
-ah'
rs6
e ()4
'
!< .q.
'
t'q.ts
as:.
c.
)
uss.
?.$
-s.
usTu cotjav 7j
1
SEP252013
(Sigaed)JosephW.Nega
Judge
SERVED Sep252043
14
l
l
$
(52 of 83)
USCA Case#
'14-1114 Document#1504649
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
SEP122013
03:13PM
JohnRysknmp
Petitioner,
MOTIONFORSUMMARY
JIJDGMENT
FiledElectronically
CommissioneroflntemalRevenue,
Respocdem.
l
Ctltisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyoftheludicialdeprmenttosaywhatthe1awis.''
-Mar
buryv.Madison
Thepleadingsonft
'leintheinstahtcaseareincorporatcdhereinbythisreference.
Justsowebaveacleartmderstandingofwheretheabuseofdscretionandcsofthis
Coul andtlteDueProcessviolationsoftheCommissicner,havepiacedthiscase,tet'srecapa
shallwe?
neCommissionerhassentmeaNoticeofAssessmentwhichisunconstitutionalbecause
theindividtlsltaxratesaa tmconstitutional.TheCotu'tisgoingtoconcludethatiaNo.01368!-
11L,buttheCourtwon'tm'leontheComlm-ssioner'smotionforsllmmaryjudgment'
inrhstcase
becausetheJudgeinthatcase(whohashadthemotionandersubrnissionsinceApzil20I3),is
irorartt/golpid/tmderillegaloutsidepressurencttoJule.
(53 of 83)
OK.nexttheCommissionerillegaltymovestheinstarltcazetotheAppealsOftkea
pursuamtoitsillegalCC-2012-003,purpcrtedlydenyingthisCourt'sjurisdiction.Seetheletrer
tomeo:tSleintheinlrrlotr-e-e.
nentl:eCour'
tdeniesamotionontheplenrlingsalthoughtheCommissioner'sillegal
move,denyingthisCourt'sjudsdicticmaisinconsistentvithfilingananswerintheinstantcase
andtheindividualincometaxratesareunconstitutional.ForFifthAmendmen:DuePracess
purposesatheillegalmoveofthecasetotheAppealsOfriceisawithdrawaloftheanswerinkhe
icstantcasebecauseitisinconsistentwitllftlingansnnwer theansweriseithezfalseorfiledin
badfaith.Therefore,Iamentitledtos'lmmaryjudgmentbecausetheCcmmissionerhasfailedto
fileananswer.AndinanyeventIamentitledtostlmmaryjudgmehtbecatusetheindividual
incometaxratesazeurlconsdtutonal(us'tagkMarkHolmes.whoistoofrightenedtosayso:ask
bl
'minthegs-gewheretheWatergatelnfnrmanttalkedtothereporters'
.itlssafethere,buthuny
befozetheytearitdown!!).
LetthisridiculousCourt-whichrefusedtoaddressANYoftheargumentsinthemotion
foranorderUustmsitl'
tadrefusedtodiscussanyzfthelawandfactsinmypreviousmotions)discussthelegalmennlngoftheCommissioner'sillegalrnovoftheinstantcasetotheAppeais
Offce.TheCouzthasnodiscussiorttooffer,becauseitdoesn'tknow enoughaboutF'ifth
AmendmentDueProcesstodiscusstheillegalmoveoftileinstantcasetotheAppealsOffict.tt
hasnoideawhatisthelegalmeaningoftbelertersenttomestatingchattheAppealsOfficehad
txzeceived''mycase.Rissilentonthepointbecauseitisunconsftutionallyprejudicedirjfavor
oftheCcmmfzsioner.M cfthedateof'
tltissling,theComrnissionerSTILLmngntainsthatthe
instamcaseislntheAppealsOffice-itisacontintlingFifthAmendmentDueProcessviclation.
2
.
u
.
wq
16
(54 of 83)
USCACase//14-1114 Document#1504649
ThisiittleslapinthefacetothisCol
m bytheCommissioner,doesn'tbotherthisCourtatall,
becauseitistooigpnorantan.
dstupidtouowwhattomakeofitSothedenialofthemotionfora'
norder,wmqalsoanabuseofdiscretilm.nereareno
factualissuestotzyinthiscase.TheNoticeofAssesment*&ssentandreceived.Noone
deniesthat- TheonlyissueisfLslegalstatus.Itslegalstatusisthatitisvoidbecausethe
indivdualincometaxratesaretmconstituticnal.ThatigwhatistobefoundinNo.013681-11L,
threlevantpleadingsofwbicharecn5leintlleinstantcmseaz.
eincozpozatedhereinandthe
allegationsfwiticharenmqertedhereim ButtheCourtwon*tdiscussthbseargument
.sintlze
instantcasebecauseitisstupid/irorant/underoutsidepresstlrenottodoso.
AstheCouztwillnote,thesameargumentzweremadeintheRequestforaCollecttcn
DueProcesshearlnginNo.01368i-11L.fwasORDERED bythisCourttomakethatRequest.
IrjviolationofTllomben'y(issuedbythisCourt-remember??),theAppealsOffketeftssedto
discussANYoftlzeargllmentsLtztheRequesteventhougl'
l'Fhornberryrtquiredittodosoal
zd
eventhoultheCourtinNo.013681-1ILorderedittodoso.
Thcfactsshow thatthisCourtandtheCommissionerconspiretorefusetoannwerANY
oftheargumentsmadeintheRequest.Thoseargtzmentsarethespmeonesmadeicthiscase,
andinNo.013681-11L. Theyarethearg'lmentsonwhichthisCou'
rt,inNo.013681-11L,
refusestorule,bccauseitwillthenhavetodiscussthem.
Thw,thisCotu'tisvioladng,andhasviolated,'rhornberry,wbichisitsowrtdecision.
ThisCourtisintemperate!!
Sograntthismotiocforstmarn.aryjudmentrefalnjuridictionofthecase,andissuean
ordersayingwhatisthelawoftheCollectlonFinancial.Standardsi
ncocjunctionwithCollectiou
(55 of 83)
DueProcessandordezingtheCornmissionertorespondwii apl= toenforcetlneCourt's

statementofthelaw.
Whoisstongrtrml
-ngyounottodiscusstheargamentsmade.
in'
thel
-nmctcaseandn
No.013681-11L?
JohnRybl-llrr!p
1677ArchSt.,BerkeleyaCA94709,(510)848-6898
pbil
meozool@yahoo.
com
Dated:SeptemberI2,2013
18
(56 of 83)
.
USCA Case//14-1114 Document#1504649
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
NOV012013
Jxwxegzk+ USTAXCOURT
ALS .qS
t eFjuEo
! S!i
*
NOV012013
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Peti
ti
onerls)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO VOID NOTICE

SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL
SERVEDNyy072013
(57 of 83)
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
NOV 012013
03:17PM
JolmRysknmp
Peudoner,
DocketNo.8888-13
SECONDSUPPLEMRNTTOMOTION
TO VOm NOTICESETTING CASE
FiledEleckoically
CommissionerofTntemalRevenues
Respmdent.
/
'
Iheattachedletlerfzom theAppealsOoce,andmyresponse,areincorporatedhereinby
thisreference.TheInternalRevenueManuclprovidesasfollox :
8.4.1.4(10-26-2001
AppealsAuthorityOverDocketedCases
Appeishassettlementauthorityinconj=ctionvvitllColmneloverdocketedcases.This
authori'tyremsinninAppealsunlessmocedtzresreqtlirethecaseberefalrnedtoCourlsel.
2.'
l
'
heOoceefChiefColl
nKel(ortheAssociateCl
aiefCounselwithsubjectmattcr
judsdicdonovertlzecaseorissues)may,afterconstlltingwiththeCllief,Appealsandthe
appropriateAreaCoploqel.determinethatacase,oranissueorissuesinacue,notbe
consideredbyAppeals.InsuchasituationxAppealsforegoessettlementatztllorityonthe
cmseorissues.
'FheManualba.
qnolegalorprecedendalautllority.Thissection,andtheactionsreferredtoin
theletter,areviolationsofF4
'f1bAmendmentDtzeProcess.Ihaveneverzequestedthatthiscase
bemovedtotheAppealsOoceandthereisnoproWsioninlaw givingtheAppealsOxce
authori
tyorjtuisdicfonoverthiscse,ortheCommissioneraulhori
tyorjudsdictiontoconfer
1
20
(58 of 83)
Filed.
'07/24/2014 Page3?r.
)ff
.1
,.:
)
authorityonorjurisdiction overthiscase. A11law sazppoztstheproposikont

katthe
CommissionerandtheApp-lnOoc,etansferacasetotlmAppealsOoceonlywhenthereisa
taxpayerrequestthatthalbedone.Secdon6330(a)(3)@)spmqt:qofSlthezightofthemrsonto
requestahearing.
n Secfon7123(a)speaksofasituadoninwll
ichtheGxpayeri'
mayrequest
earlyrefen'alof1ormoretmresolvedissuesom tlzeexnminaionorcollectiondivisiontothe
IntemalRevenueSerdceOoceofAppeal
it
vE'
e asesa .
'
I'
hereasonforthereqirementinlawthatthetaxpayermakearequesqisobviotu:ifthe
caseisintheAppealsOfficewititotarequestytheApmalsOoceisnotindependentaandt'
hatis
aFifthAmendmenlDueProcessviolation.TheCommissionerand'theAppealsOcceacta.qone
irlthetreferral''andreceipt''arzdLirettunf'ofdocketedcues.nesecdonofthemanualquoted
aboveyisclea'
rlat,with zegardtotheproceduresitdescribes,theAppealsOfficeisnot
independent InlieuofataxpayerrequestvtheseproceduresviolateFifthAmendmentDue.
'IheactionsreferredtoizltheletterarealzmssertionbytheComrnissionrandtheAppeals
OocethattheTaxCourtlacl
csjudsdicdoni
nthiscase.andsoareWomberryviolati
ons.The
usertionbytheCommissionerisawaiverofoppositiontothepetYon,nerebeingfactsin
supportofthepetifon,theCourtmustvoidthenoticesettingtrial.say,inanorderbindingon
theCo
ssioner,whatistllelaw ofthemaizrtenanceofimportantfactsperthepeftion.
' mmi
J
!
John
lRysksmp
1677ArchSt..BerkeleyyCA94709,(510)848-6898
phil
neozool@yahoov
com
Dated:Novembc'r1,2013
-'
(59 of 83)
USCACase#14-1114 Document41504649
DepartmentoftheTreasu
IntemalRevenueSewice
PhiladelphiaCampusAppeals
PersontoContact:
600ArchStreet
Room 6448
JamesHesler
EmployeeIDNumbec0945362
Philadelphia,PA 19106
TeI: 215-861-1487
Fax:215-861-1661
InRe:
Date:October28v2013
IncomeTaxLiability
DocketNumberl
JOHN HENRYRYSKAMP
8888-13
1677ARCHST
TaxPeriodls)Ended:
12/2010
BERKELEYCA 94709
YouhavefiledapetitionwiththeUni
tedStateTaxcourtregardingyourincometaxfor
thetaxperi
odsshownabove.I
tbeneRsusbothtosettl
ethei
ssuets)i
nyourcase
withoutMal.Therefore,yourcasehasbeenreferredtothisAppealsOfficetotryto
resol
vetheunagreedissues.ForaIimitedtime,ourofficehassolesettlement
a
uthori
ty.Appeal
sisseqaratefrom-andi
ndependentof-thedi
vi
si
onoftheIntemal
RevenueSewiceproposlngtheadionyoudisagreewith.Wereview andresolve
disputestaxpayershavemt
'htheIntemalRevenueService.Wedothisinafairand
impartialwaybyusingtheIaw andcouddecisionstoweighthefacts-I
fwedonot
reachanagreementwithyou,wemustreferyourcasetotheOfficeofAreaCounselto
prepareyourcaseforMal.
Inordertoconsideryourposltion,Iwillneedadditionalinformation.Pleasesubmita
copyofyourPetition,asoriginallyfiledwl
ththeTaxCourt.Pleasesubmitacopyofa
promsed2010taxretum.Icanthenconsidertheretum fortheprocessofsettlement.
PleaserespondtothisIetterbyMonday,November18,2013.lfyouhavequestions,or
wishtodiscussthecase,pleasec,a11meatthenumberIistedabove.lflhavenot
recelvedaresponsebyNovember18,1willforwardthecasetocounselfortrial
preparation.Itwoul
dthenbenecesuryforyoutoappearintaxcoudtocontinueyour
appeal.
Sincerely,
JamesHesler
AppealsOmcer
G
;
22
(60 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!$2522251!!!!lEpdvnf01
.1$261575 1!f'!'!!'!'icjrhei18T.51125'!:';f
.'
.
?r--
November2,7-G13
JamesHesler
AppealsOfffcer
IRS
600ArchSt.
Room 6448
Philadelphia,PA19106
Re:8888-13,TaxPeriod2010
DearMr.Heiler:
Withregardtdyourletterof10/28/2013,citeaIIlawsandauthoritiespursuanttowhkhthis
casehasallegedlybeen'freferred''totheAppealsOmce.CitetheIaworauthori
typursuantlo
whichtheAppealsOfficeallegedlyhas''solesettlementauthorit/'overthscaseorauthorityto
e'forward''thiscase.
At-tachtoyourreplyacopyofaIIdocumen'
tsintheAppealsOfficerelatingtothtscase,including
bu1notIimitedtonotes,memoranda,electronicandanyotherformofcommunication,forms,
pleadingsandIetters.
<.
;
t
I
t
%
.
.
j
.
X,
s5
as 1
l
:
r
A%
.
%
.
)
JohnRyskamp
N,
t
kV
23
(61 of 83)
VTDBI
Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!lEpdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!ll
qrhe'
,!18351125!!!!lltyhf!521pj74
USTAXCOURT
.%*%*'% USTAXCOURT
RECEI
VED
ALS J
s&
g
% -
SUNDAY
NoV032013
eFluEn
NOV042013
JOHN HENRYRYSKAMP
Petitionerls)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7
l
i
UsTAXCOUR'''
D E N IE D
NOV122013
(Signed)JosephW.Nega
SERVEDNov122013 24
Judge
(62 of 83)
b /lf
o' 4225!!!!!l
Epdvnfot
1$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!l
qrhe,
'!18151125!!!!!l
obhf!53'
:.
474
RECEIVED
NOV032013
05:35PM
JohnRysknmp
Peutioner,
DocketN..8:88-13
MOTIONFORSIFMMARY
JUDGNGNT
FiledElectronically
ComnaissionerofIntemalRevenue,
Respondent.
/
Thererll-enot,andhaveneverbeen.anyfactsatissueinthiscaseawhichiswhythe
notionofatrialisridiculous.ThesoleissueisthelegalstatusoftheNoticeandtheletters
Hreferring''thiscaseto the ApmalsOfficeawhich lettersare on fileinthiscaseand are
incorporatedhereinbythisreference.ButthisCourtcannomoredealwiththatlhancanMark
HolmesdealwiththelegalstamsoftheCommissioner'sThornberryviolationsinthecompanion
casetothjsone.No.013681-11L.ThereasonisthattheCourtissomiredinunconstitutional
complicitywiththeCommissionerandtheAppealsOfice-from failingoverdecadestosua
sponteconfrontthejurisdictionalviolationsraisedinVinatieriv.CommissionerandThomberry
v.Commissionertofailingtoconfrontthejurisdictionalviolationsofthe'Yeferrals''bythe
Commissionerofcases to the AppealsOffice withoutrequestsfrom tupayers--that
pronounceontheIegaiissuesinvolvestheCourtextinguishingitselfforitssystematicfailureto
actmsanArticle1Court.TheJudgereadingthisknowsthatjustaswellasMarkHolmes.Idiots.
**
25
(63 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!$25.2225!!!!!!Epdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!
Qrhe'
,!18151125!!!!!!
C*hf!54!p474
Thepleadingsinthiscasearereassertedandincomoratedhereinbyth1 reference.In
additiontctlaereonlybeingalegalissueinthiscase,now wehaveanew farcefrom the
CommissionerandtMsCourtprecludinganytrial.
DuetotheillegalactionsoftheCommissioner.theAppealsOftkeandthisCourt,itis
impossibletogo to tlial,and theonlyactionremaining isforthisCourttop'antsurama:y
--
judgmentan say,m te ormo anorer in1ng(

l
n--tle-re= k '
'
'
CollectionFinancialStandardsinconjunction with CollectionDue Process,ncludingthe
unconstitutionalityoftheindividualincometaxrates.Herearethereuons:
becausetheCommissionerandtheAppealsOflceillegallyf'transferredf'thecaseto
theAppealsOflke.IhaveaFiftbAmendmentDueProcessrighttoaNoticeof
Determinauon;therecanbenotrialuntiloneisissued1;
2.however,dueto thesesnnaeillegalactiorls.asamatterofFifthAmendrnentDue
ProcesstheAppealsOfficecarmotissueaNoticeofDeterminationbecause1didnot
requestatransferofthiscasetotheAppealsOffice.
Thisridiculoussituation,theproductofendlessviolationsofFifthAmendmentDueProcess
whichimplicatetheentiretaxationprocesstoandincludingtheindividualincometaxrates.is
entrenchedintheCornmissioner'sprocess,tothepointofbeingfonnalizedandinstitutionalized
inthelntemalRevenueManual,asfollows:
8.4.1.4(10-26-2*7)
AppealsAuthorityOverDocketedCases
AppealshassettlementauthorityinconjtmctionwithCounseloverdocketedcces.This
authodtyremainsinAppealsunlessproceduresrequirethecaseberetumedtoCounsel.
neOoceofChiefCounsel(ortheAssociateChiefCounselwithsubjectmatter
jurisdictionoverthecaseorissues)may,afterconsulti
ngwiththeChietApmalsandthe
appropdateAreaColmsel,determinethatacmse.oranissueorissuesinacmse,notbe
2
26
%4eK
(64 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!$25.2225!!!!!lEpdvnf0d$261575*
.!!!!!!!!!ll
qrhe.!18151125!!!!!lcYhf,
55'p9
/74
consideredbyAppeals.Insuchasituation.Appealsforegoessettlementauthorieonthe
caseorismzts.
Obviously.theManualhasno legalorprecedentialauthority. Whatitshows.instead,is
conclusivecvidenceofdefianceofthisCourt'sjurisdictioncocpledwiththisCourt'sfailureto
exercisesuaspont
eit
.
spoweroverjurisdiction. neCourthmsfordecadessanctionedthis
ImCOZS'
RI
XWWZWW '
'
'' '
'Siox
P-FIVRSG .---violationsrightundertheCourt'snose,withnotawordfrom thisCourt.Nauseating.
Needlesstosay.IhaveneverrequestedthatthiscasebemovedtotheAppealsOffkeand
thereisnoprovisioninlawgivingtheAppealsOfficeauthorityorjurisdictionoverthiscre.or
theCommissionerauthori
tyorjurisdi
ctiont
oconferauthorityonorjurisdictionoverthiscase.
Al1IawsuppmsthepropositionthattheCommissionerandthe'
AppealsOfficeeansferacaseto
the AppealsOffice only when there is a tupayer requestthatthatbe done. Section
6330(a)(3)(B)speaksoftherightofthepersontorequestaheadng.'fSection.
7123(a)smnkK
ofasituationinwhichtlletaxpayerGmayrequestearlyreferralof1ormoreunresolvedissues
from theexaminationorcollectiondivisiontotheInterrlalRevenueServiceOfficeofAppeals.''
Emphasesadded.TheCommissionerandtheAppealsOfficeactasoneinthetreferral''and
Rreceipf'and'Yetum''ofdocketedcases-Thesectionofthemanualquotedaboveviscleazthat.
withregardtotheproceduresitdescribesatheAppealsOfficeisnotindemndent.Inlieuofa
taxpayer-request,theseproceduresviolateFifthAmendmentDue.
UNCONSTITUTIONALASAPPLIED
26USC6330(d)(2)providesthat%q-iteInternalRevenueServiceOfficeofApmalsshall
retainjurisdictionwi
threspecttoanydeterminationmadeunderthissection....
>
*Thisprovision
isunconstitutionalasappliedtot*refen-als''intheabsenceoftupayerrequest,asviolativef
3
27
(65 of 83)
VTDBI
Dbtf!$25.2225!lllllEpdvnf0d$261575.!!!!!!!!!!!
Qrhe;!18151125!!!!!!C.
bhf!
56!
p474
FifthAmendmentDueProcessandCollecti
onDueProcessinconjunctionwiththeCollection
FinancialStcdards.
FACIALLYUNCONSH TUH ONAL
26USC6330(a)(l)provides:1Wolevymaybemadeonanypropertyorrighttopromrty
ofanypersonunlesstheSecretaryhasnotifiedsuchpersoninwritingoftheirrighttoahearing
uner lssectlon oresuc evylsmae.
p'
r
e-'t
includesthepowerofdistraintandseizurebyanymeans.''26USC 6331(a)provides:''Ifany
personliabletopayanytaxneglectsorrefusestopaythesamewithin10daysafternoticeand
dcmandsitshallbelawf'
ulfortheSecretarytocollectsuchtax(andsuchfurthersum asshallbe
suftkienttocovertheexpensesoftheIevy)bylevyuponaIlpropertyandrightstoproperty
(exceptsuchpropertyasisexemptundersection6334)belongi
ngtosuchpersonoronwhich
9
thereisalienprovidedinthischapterforthepaymentofsuchtax-''Thefactsshow thatfor
purposesofFifthAmendmentDuePressandCollectionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththe
CollectionFinancialStandardsvthettlevy''of26UCSSeections6330,6331and7701isanillegal
f'referralf'andthereforethelevye'isunconstitutionalonitsface.
Bytheway.thecaseremainsintheAppealsOfficeasofthisfilingveventhoughthe
Counknowsthatthisillegalgreferral''occurred.Note,however,thatthedefianceofthisCoun's
jurisdiction,andthusvtheDueProcessviolation,donotendbythereturn''ofthecasefromthe
AppealsOfficeto theCommissioner,becauseastheManualsays.itistheassertionofthe
AppealsOfficeandtheCommissionerthat Appealshassettlementauthodtyinconjunction
withCounseloverdocketedcnms.''Apmalsassertsthatithassomelegalauthorityevenafter
violatingtheIaw byparticipatinginthe*4referral''processwiththeCommissionerwithouta
requestfrom tl
aetaxpayer.Thisis.nmongotherviolations.aviolationofSection6330,andan
4
28
--
(66 of 83)
I
assertionthatthisCourtdoesnothaveFifthAmendmentDueProcessjurisdicdonoverthecase.
MdthisCourthasalwaysknownaboutthis,hasneversuasponteraisedjudsdictionvandhas
incorporatedthisillegalactionininnumerableopinions.Disgusting.
Thereesonfortherequirementin1awthatthetaxpayermakearequest.isobvious:ifthe
caseisintheAppealsOfficewithoutarequest.theAppealsOffceisnotindependent,andthaLis
alsoaviolaionofCollectionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththeCollectionFinancial
Standards,bothofwhichareconjoinednotonlybytheCodesectionsbutalsobyFifth
Amendment,andthejointCDP-CFSisconjoinedthroughFifthAmendmentDueProcesstothe
individualincometaxrates.'Fheya1lfailfor,amongreasons,thepersistentviolationsrevealed
'
bythefireferral''totheAppealsOflcewithouttaxpayerrequest#thatthatbedone.Herewesee
why Mark Holmes cannot actin No.013681-11L:the Fifth AmendmentDue Process
implicationsaretoonumerousforhisweak,comzpt.superciliousmindtohandle. Sohesits
thereanddoesnothingwhileConstitutionalviolationsagainstmecontinue.
neCommissionerandtheAppealsOfl
keactmsoneintheGtreferral''andreceipt'*and
ttreturn''ofdocketedcases.'
rhesectionofthemanualquotedabovevisclearthat,withregardto
theproceduresitdescribes,theAppealsOftkeisnotindependent.Inlieuofataxpayerrequesq
theseproceduresviolateFifthAmendmentDue.
neactionsreferredtointheletterareanassertionbytheCommissionerandtheAppeals
OfficethattheTM Courtlacksjurisdictioninthiscase,andsoareTholmberl'
yvolations.The
assertionbytheCommissionerisawaiverofoppositiontothepetition.Therebeingfactsin
supportofthemtition,theresultcanonlybesummaryjudgmentinmyfavor,inthefonnofan
N*A
29
+
'-
''- -'-
(67 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!$.25.
2225!lllllEpdvnf0d$261575:!!!f!!!!!f!
qrhe'
,!18151125!!!fll
t
mhf!
58!p474
orderbindingontheCommissioner,sayingwhatisthelawofthemnintenanceofimportantfacts
Nrthepetition.
Youwillnoticethatthisispredselythesameissueinmyothercase,No.013681-1lL.
TheCommissioner'ssummaryjudgmentinthatmatlerstillhasnftbeendecided,eventhoughit
-
hasbeenundersubmissionsinceApril.Now weknow thereason.Jurisdictionisalwaysat

lssue,an ls o e asseraww m
s.uj
a.x
.
jurisdictionalviolationinthisunconstitutionalpracticeoflreferring''casestotheApmalsOftice
wherenotaxpayerrequesthasbeenmade.Notethatjurisdicdonwasanissueinb0thVinatieri
andThornberryandtheCourtfailedtosuasponteraisejurisdiction.ThisCourtisirretrievably
miredinDueProcessviolations.
TheresultisthattheCourqtheCommissionerandtheAppealsOftkehaveengagedina
criminalconspiracy,involvinganenormousnumberofcasesstretchingoveralongyriodof
time,inacontinuingFifthAmendmentDueProcessviolationoftnxpayerrights.Ofcoursevthe
Court'sillegalroleinthisisanArticleIviolation.TheCourtmustactasaCourtinorderto
11t111itsArticlelduty.Thatinvolvesfindingjurisdictionalviolations.andhereitisobviousthat
theCourthasknow'nofandsanctionedthisillegal*treferring''practice.
nisisthcreasontheCourtcannotruleinNo.01368l-11L.Therehavebeensomany
i
ll
egaljurisdictionalviolationsbytMsCourt,somany'abusesofdiscretion(nmongothers,the
marlythousandswhichprecededthedecisionsinVinatieriv.CommissionerandThomberryv.
Commissioner),thatiftheCourtruledonNo.013681-11Lvitwouldhavetoextinguishitselfasa
CourtforArticle1violations.
Now theCourtisfacedwithdeclaringtheindividualincometaxratesunconstitutional
becausethatist
heinescapableDueProcessconclusionofCDPinconjt
mctionwithCFS.ne
6
30
#?
*?
+
(68 of 83)
ratesareirrational,nofactssupportthem-artdthatisalsothegravamenoftheFifthAmendment
DueProcesscomplaint;theThornben'y,VinatieriandHreferral''violationsareirrational.n ey
donotcomportwithCollectionDuePressinconjunctionwiththeCollecti
onFinanci
al
Standards.
Forjustoneexampleoftheirrationalityoftheindividualincometaxrates,Ipointedout
orthudt-warfrrate
'
anduludentqe .
Commissicnerdenieditvandloandbehold,thenpreededtoincludethem intlleCollection
FinancialStandards.TheComrnissionerdeniedthattherewereFifthAmendmentDueProcess
IightsintheCFS,butstatetaxesandstudentloansarelitigableinthisCourtinthecontextof
CDPinconjunctionwithCFS.andthatlitigabilityisaFifthAmendmentDueProcessright.
Ofcoursetheindividualincometaxratesareirrational.Ofcoursetheymustbedeclared
unconstitutionalaspartofastatementofthelawbythisCourtofthelawofCFSinconjunction
withCDR.
Theonlyquestioniswhetherthepart
icularjudgereadi
ngthepresentdocument(andthere
havebeenseveralinthiscase,eachofwhom hascommittedinnumerableabusesofdiscretion
pre-Thomberryarldinthematterofsreferring''caseswithnotaxpayerrequest-you,readery
ha
vedonethesamething)issufticientlysanetoreachtheconclusionthefactsandIawmandate.
)
kl
J
i
7.-
/'
JohnRysknmp
1677ArchSt..Berkeley,CA94709,(510)848-6898
philneozl@yahoo,com
Dated;November3.2013
7
31
(69 of 83)
*
. -.. ...
- ..
us
VTTDB
uI
DCOU
btf!
$RT
25.2225!lllllEpdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!I
qrhe'
,!181511e s,4+hf*
'# COURT
RECEIVED
g c,r
j
ayjuEo
,
RMu : o!
Nov132013
12:44PM
Nov132043
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Petitionerts)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SERVEDN3r 132013
(70 of 83)
JolmRyskanp
Pedtioner,
UNI'FEDSTATESTu COW T
DocketNo.8888-13
SW PLEMENTTOMOTIONFOR
SUMMARYJUDGMENT
FiledElectronically
M.
CommissionerofInternalRevenue,
Respondent.
TheCommissionerandtheAppeisOft
icehavecovrmedtheFifthAmendmentDue
Processviolationwhich1pointedoutint'
herecentmotionforsummaryjudgmentw'
hich,inan
abuseofdiscetionandinviolationofArticle1,wasdezliedbyJudgeNega.'
Theallegationsof
thatmotionareincorporatedhereinartdreallegedbythisreference.
SeetiteletterofNovember6,2013Ctheletter'')attachedheretoandincoporatedherein
byt
hisreference,inwhichtheCommissionerandtheAppealsOffceaskifIwishtotcooperate''
andtot<provide''information,thusaffirmingthat1havenotaskedthatthecasebeGreferred''to
theAppealsOfdce.Theletteralsostatesthattb.
eSreferral''is'lvoluntary.''Thisprovesthatthe
CommissionerarldtheAppealsOfficeknow thatIhavetorequestthatthetilebereferredtothe
ApptalsOfficebeforeitcanbereferred.ItalsoshowsthatmyFifthAmendmentDueProcess
analysis,inthemotiondertiedbyJudgeNegaaoftheviolation,iscorrect.
Theconsequenceofthisviolationisthat1couldnotobtxinaCollectionDueProcess
hearing,orreach asettlement,orhaveatrial,whichcomplieswithFl
'fthAmene entDue
'
-Q.
A
33
(71 of 83)
VTDBI
Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!lEpdvnf0d$261575*
,!!!!!!!!!!!l
ql
'
he'
,!18151125!!!!ll
c.
bhf!
62!
p474
Process.TheCourtconspiresw1t.
1:theCommiAsionerandtheAppealsOvcetoviolateDue
Processaandn ornberzy,whichistheCourt'sowndecision. Obviously,therehavebeen
innllrnerablecasesinwhichthisCourthasfailcdtosuasponteexerciseitsjttrisdiction-asis
requiredbyFifthAmendmentDueProcess-toordercasesbacktotheCommissionerwhich
havebeentrefcrred''totheAppealsOftkewithouttaxpayerrequest.Theindependenceofthe
''
Agpe'
al '
e
zr,
cnnnotConstittdonallyasessindividualincometaxationbecausethefactsshow thathisintent
isnottodoso-hisintentistoviolatetrpayerrights.
ThecaseisSTILLintheAppealsOfficeasofthisfiling,thisCourthavinglkiledtoorder
itbacktotheCommissioner. TherecouldnotbeafairtrialinthismatterbecauseInever
receivedaFifthAmendmentDueProcessopportunitytocontesttheNotice.natrightwas
deniedbebytheillegalconspiracyoftheCourqtheCommissionerandtheAppealsOflice.
Thus,theietteris,forFiflhAmendmentDueProcesssalevyand1havegivenititslegal
title.Therefore,itviolatesSection6330,FifthAmendmentDueProcessandArricle1.
Again,as1claimedbeforeandasthisletternowproves,therecanbenotrialinthiscase
whichcouldunderanycircumstancesmeetthedemandsofFif'
thAmenclmem DueProcess.
Agaiw as1clnirnedbeforeandasthisletternowproves,theCourtmustforthwithgra'
nt
sllmmazyjudgmentandsaywhatisth.
e1awofCollecionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththe
CollectionFinancialStandards. Theindvidualincometaxratesareunconstimtionalbecause
theyhavenotbeenshowntobeincomplianceVththislaw.
nusythiscasestandsinexactlythesamepostureasNo.013621-1lL,whichisexactly
whatIhavealwaysalleged,andnowthefactsshowthatIqmcorrect.
34
(72 of 83)
ThefactsshowthatJudgeNegaactedonprejudice,andnotonmyfacts,indenyicgthe
motionforsll
mmaryjudpnent.Forthisreuon,removehi
mfzomthecase.
Yoursupercil
ious,police s
'
tate,ridiculous,ignorantjudgespersi
s'
tintheir
Constitudonalviolations.n eentireCourtisinviolationofArticle1,itfailstoactasaCourt.
JolmRysknmp
1677ArchSt.,Berkeley,CA94709,(5l0)848-6898
philneozool@yahoo.com
Dated:November13a20l3
Ww1Q
A
35
(73 of 83)
VTDBI
Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!!Epdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!Qrhe,
'!18@5T125!!!!!!
(>hf!64!pj74
InternalRevenueService
Philadel ' CampusAppeals
600ArchSt t
Room 6448
Philadelphia,PA..
1
.9106
N
DepadmentoftheTreasury
PersontoContact;
JamesHesler
EmployeeIDNumber:0945362
TeI: 215-861-1487
Fax:215-861-1661
ReferReplyto:
AP:COCPHC:JEH
jjr
:jj:
i
l:
,
t:
,
r::
lncomeTaxLiability
Ta
P0e1rl
1x
2/2
0odts)Ended:
Date:November6,201:
.
.
.
N
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP .N
1
7AR
HS
.
B6
E7
RKE
LC
EY
CT
A 94709
Ykx
1
DearMr.JohnHenryRyskamp: .
%X
%
ThesewiceoftheAppealsdivisionisofferedasavoluntaryoptiononeverydocketed
U.S.TaxCoudcase.YoudonotneedtbcooperatewiththeAppealsdivisioni
fyoudo
notwishto.
..
'
IwillkeepyourfileopenuntilMonday,Noveber18,2013.Ifyouwishtoprovide
informationformyconsideration,youmaydosb.Otherwise,lwillsendyour5letoArea
Counsel.
'
X
Slhcerelyy
>
.
l
JamesHesler
Appeal
sqf
i
cer
Nf
'
AG
36
(74 of 83)
USTAkT@ijAS!$25.2225!!1!!lEpdvnf0$261575:!!!!!!!!!!ll
Ql
fl
e,
'!181511.. .+hf!
T# COURT
RECEI
VED
Rs !
? C
QFILED
ka3%
J
NOV 192013
04:26PM
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Pet
ti
onerls)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM
SERVEDj#v212013
NOV192013
(75 of 83)
usT T
Y!
$25.2225!!!!!lEpdvnfotl$261575'
.!!!!!!!!!!llqrhe'
,!18151125!!!!ll
tbhf!
66!pj74
RECEIVED
NOV 192013
04:26PM
TrialCalendar:SANFM NCISCO,CALIFORNXA
Date:Monday,Februaryi0,2014
PRETRIALO MORANDUM FORJolm Ryskamp
NAc OFCASE:Ryskampv.Commissioner
DocketNo.8888-13
ATTORNEYS:
eIoner;o ''RyKemp
spon . w
.---.5108486898
415547-3800
AMOUNTSENDISPUTE;
Defciency
Penally
Yers
1342
4771
2010
STATUSOFCASE:SeeAttachmenttoPretrizMemorandum
CURRENTESTN ATEOFTR1A1.:SeeAttachmenttoPretrialMemorandum
MOTIONSYOUEU ECTTOMAKE:SeeM achmentloPretrialMemorandlzm
STATUSOFSTVULATION OFFACTS:SetAttachmenttoPretrialMemorarldum
ISSUES:SeeAttachmenttoPrekialMemormdum
WITNESSESYOUEXPECTTOCALL:SeeAttachmenttoPretrialMemorandam
SUMMARYOFFACTS:SeeAttachmenttoPretrialMemorandum
BIUEFS> OPSISOFLEGALAUTHOIUTIES:SeePretrialMemorandum
EVIDEN'IRMW PROBLEMS:SeePretrialMemorandtun
Date:11/1972013
JohnRysknmp,Petitioner
TrialJudge: JudgeJosephW.Nega
UnitedStatesTaxcourqR.00m322
400SecondSt.,N.W.
(202)521-0640
38
-.
(76 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!
$25.2225!!!!!!
Epdvnf01
.
1$261575.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Q*e,
'!185125!!!!!!hf!
671pj74
'
l-hedoczlmentsaudpleadingsinthiscaseazeincorporatedhereinbythisreference.The
Commissioner'trefarred''tliiscasetotheAppealsOffice and the AppealsOffice
'*received''thiscaseinanillegalactwithoutmyrequest-aFiRh AmendmentDue
Process,Thornberryv.Commissioner,Section6330andArticleIviolation.I.naletterto
me,theAppealsOmceadmitted thepropam wasftvolunlaty''and thatIhadnot
requestedthe'Greferral.''ForreasonsMatedinthemotionforsllmmaryjudgmentvthis
lreferral''deseoyedtheindependenceoftheAppealsOfficewhichistheintentofthelaw
requiringthattaxpayersreques'ttherefezraltotheAppealsOoce. Tilisi.
salsothe
tmders4sndingoftheCommissionerandtheAppealsOfliceinadmitt
ingthattheprogram
isvoluntazy.
S
ection6330(c)(1)providesthataNeri
f
kati
onomtheSecretarythattherequizementsof
anyapplicablelaw oradrniniskativeprocedurehavebeenmet''mustbeobtainedbythe
A
pyealsOffice.TheAppealsO'f
ficecannotobtai
n,andtheSecretarycnnnotprovide.a
venficafon,becausemyperml
ssionwasnotobtainedtoSrefer'*to thecasetothe
AppealsOffice. n us,thetrialcsnnotbeheld,becausetheverificationcannotbe
prasentedtotheCour'
t.
Entirely apartom the issue ofthe verification,no trialcan proceed wherethe
zequirement ofanyapplicablelaweoradministrativeprocedurehavenotbeenmetand
theltrefeaal-'meansthatFifthAmendmentDueProcess,Section6330,Thornberryv.
CommissionerandArticle1requirementshavenotbeenmet.
Thissittzalion istheresultofthefa'
tlureoftllisCotll'
ttoexercisesuasponteits
jurisdictioninthisviolationoftheCourt'sjurisdiction.Inanuntoldnumberofcases,this
Courthasapprovedthisillegi treferral,''justas,inat'
luntoidnumberofcases,it
approvedviolationsofVinatieriv.CommissionerarldThornben'
yv.Conamissioner,
n eseviolationsofthe Courtshow theCourtinaknowingand systematicjllegal
collusionwiththeCommisionerandtheAppealsOfficetoviolateConstittztionzrightsof
taxpayers.nus,theCourtisinvioladonofArticleIthatitbeaCourt Forthisreason
aswell,thetrialcnnnotbeheld thereis,forpurposesofArricle1andFifthAmendment
DueProcess-noCourtiawltichtoholdit.
TheCourtmustnotattempttoholdatrial,butmustinsteadgram summaryjudo ent,

pm ofwlzichisan orderbindirgontheCommissioner,sayingwhatisthelaw of
2
39
(77 of 83)
VTDBI
Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!!Epdvnf0:$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!qf
'
he'
,!1851125!!!!!!
(>hf!
68!
pj74
CollectionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththeCollectionFinnncbalStandards.Thisis
exactlythereliefrequestedinNo.013681-11L.
TheCourtmustalsoinform theConvessthatitisnolongerabletofnnctionasanM icle
1Courqthefactsshowingthatit.suntoldConstilutionalviolationspre-nornbenyand
withrespecttolmrequested*referrals''yareconclusiveevidenceofaknowingpatternof
collusionbytheCourtwiththeCommissionerandtheAppealsOocetoviolatetaxpayer
dghts.
40
(78 of 83)
z VTDBIDbtf!$25.2225!!1lllEpdvnf0$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!qrhe'
J!181511*. +hf!
A
COURT
USRTE
AX
cLc ,
# 8%
CECOUR
IVEDT
%
j eFILED
.
DEC 112013
08:01PM
JOHN HENRYRYSKAMP
Petitionerls)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE?
Respondent
MOTION FOR AN ORDER
DEc 112013
(79 of 83)
VTDBIDMf!$252225!!!!!!Epdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!rhe'
,!1E3(1565(E
5126
5!!!!!! hf!
t5'
.!pj72)
UsTAXCURT
RECEIVED
DEC 112013
LWI'I'EDSTATESTytxCOURT
08:01PM
DockdNo.8888-13
MOTIONFORANORDER
FiledElectonically
JobnRyskamp
CommissionerofIntern?Revenue,
ImovetheCoudfora!zorderthattheAppealsOmceissueandserveonme.nolaterthsn
December26,2013,aNoticeofDeterminationandtbntpursllrmtto26USC7482(a)(2)(A),the
Courthcludei:litsorderastatementthatacontollingquestionoflawisinvolvedwithrespect
towllichthereisasubstantialvoundfordifferenceofopinionandthatanimmediateappea!
fromtllatordermaymateriallyadvancetheuttimateterminationoftheliligadon.
b
A -. >
JolmRysk'
arnp
1677ArchSt,Berkeley,CA94709,(510)848-6898
p
hilneozool@yahoo.com
Dated:December11,2013
42
(80 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!
$25.2225!!!!!!Epdvnf0d$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!
Qrhe'
,!181511*.
t..
'
+hfU! COURT
UsRECEI
TAXCVED
OURT
RMM
L? SG
!
I
QFILED
DEC172013
DEC 172013
12:13PM
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
Peti
ti
onerls)
ELECTRONICALLYFILED
DocketNo. 8888-13
Respondent
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ORDER
SERVEDqjc192013
(81 of 83)
VTDBl
Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!I
Epdvnfot1$261575*
.!!!!!I!!!!!lqr
he'
,!18151125!
.
!!!fltbhf6
72'
pj,
-4
USTAXCOURT
RECEIVED
DEC 172013
12:13PM
UNI'I'EDSTATESTu COURT
O FSMIP
OCe 9. SUPPLEG NTTOMOTIONFORAN
ORDER(re:NoticeofDetermination)
FiledElectzonically
CommissionerofInternalRevenue,
Resoondect.
l
TheletterofDecember22,2013,from theAppealsOfficeto me,andthelettezof
December17,2013,from metotheAppealsOflce,areattachedheretoandirtcozporatedherein
bythisreference.
JolnnRysksrmp
1677ArchSt.,Berkeley,CA94709.(510)842-6898
p
hilneozool@yal
noo-com
Daled:December17,2013
44
(82 of 83)
VTDBIDbtf!
$25.2225!!!!!lEpdvnf0:$261575:!!!!!!!!!!!!
Qrhe'
,!18151125!!!!ll
tyhf!
73!p474
Decemberl7.2O13
IRS
600ArchSt.
Room6448
Philadelphia,PA l9106
TotheAppealsOffice:
YourDecember11,2013,letteris,forSection6330andFifthAmendmentDueProcess
purposes,alevy,and1haveidentiseditassuchandrettzrnittoyou.Itisanillegalievy
inviolationofSection6330artdFifthAmendmentDueProcess.
'
Fheletterisalieabotztyourownconduc'
t.lndependentofit
.sstamsasanillegallevy,it
isaSection6330andFifthAmendmentDueProcessviolation'
asanactinfurtherarlceof
anillegalconspiracywiththeOfficeofChiefCounseltoviolateSection6330andFiflh
AmendmentDueProcess.
Youhavearladmitted,irlalettertomeonfileintheTaxCouzt,thatyouhadnolegal
rightto'treceive''mycaseandthattheOfficeofChiefCounselhadnolegalrightto
klrefer''ittoyou,because1neverrequested thatthecasebesenttotheAppealsOfce.
Soyou1iewhenyousayyouQriedtosettlethiscase.''Apartfrom theseaca,iereisno
Stcase''to'ttrytosettle''becausetheiudividualincometaxratesarein'
dolationof
Coi
lectionDueProcessinconjunctionwiththeCollectionFinr
mcialSOndards,andyou
areawarethatthereisnolaw tmderwhichthisucase''canbetziedsince,onJuly25,
2012,inieManualyouconcededthatthelawisG%developing.''
Jnt'receiving''thet'referral''ofthiscmse,youdestroyedtileindependenceoftheAppeals
Oflice,andtheOfficeofChiefColmselconspiredwithyoutodoso.Youhavedenied
methepossibilityofatrialwhichmeetsFifthAmendmentDueProcessrequirements. I
carmotavailmyselfofmySection6330rightsbecausemuhavedestroyedyour
independence.TheOfceofChiefCounselcazmotlegallyprosecutethiscasebecauseit
hasnocredibility,havingconspiredtodestroytheindependenceoftheAppealsOftice;
theOoceofChiefCotmselcnnnotobtainverificationthatapplicablelawsand
procedureswerecompliedwith,becausetheO/ceofCitiefCollnqelconspiredwithyou
todestroytheindependenceoftheAppealsOffice.
ForthwithserveonmetheNoticeofDetermination.
JohnRyskamp
1677ArchSt.
Berkeley,CA94709
45
(83 of 83)
vTDB!Dbtf!$25.2225!!!!!!Epdvnf0:$261575.!!t!!!!!!!!!Qrhe'
.!18T5T125!'!i''(.
)i
:)L#'C.1;'
,'
.-?
InternalRevenueService
60OArchStreet
Room 6448
PhladelphiaAxP
A 19106
w
DepadmentoftheTreasury
PersontoContact:
JamesHesler
Empl
oyeeIDNumber:0945362
Tel: 215-861-1487
X
Date:XEJ.)
(
.2/r-..'x
Fax;215-861-1661
xNN
.
JOHNHENRYRYSKAMP
1677ARCHST
BERKELR CA 94709
r
C
RAP
efe:r
Replyto:
CO:PHC:JEH
o. ,
/
IJ 'r
a.-a'
k-s,l
InRe:
IncomeTaxLlability
DocketNumber:
8888-13
Petitioner:
JohnHenryRyskamp
Taxeeriodts)Ended:
12/2010
DearMr.JohnHenryRyskamp:
Wetriedtosettlethiscaseandavoidtrial.Unfortunatel
y,wedidnotreachabasisfor
sedlementandhave,therefore,referredthecasetoAreaCounseltopreparefortrial.
lfyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactthepeaonwhosenameandtelephone
numberareshownabove.
,7
Sin el
y
,
z
e-
VerneidaSanders
AppealsTeam Manager
*A.
46

Ryskamp v. Commissioner Appellant Brief Ninth Circuit 14-73059

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ryskamp v. Commissioner Appellant Brief Ninth Circuit 14-73059

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

- <I

DATE ----- INITIAu'

CERTIFICATEASTO PARTIES,RULGGS,AND RELATED CASES

themeritsprecludeda26USC 6330(d)(1)judicialreview ofdetermlnation,sothere

transfers of docketed cases? Itisbecause the Appeals Ofsce subscdbesto the

Commissionerrefusesto acquiescein Thornberry. Whatismore,theCommissioner

Jolm Rysknmp -1677ArchSt.

UNITED STATESCOURTOFM PEALS

COMMISSIONER OFTNTEM ALREVENUE,

MOTION TO VOID NOTICE SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL

Offke,attheorderoftheCommissioner,haskeated and doeskeatmsaReques't. The

5deissuesraised in theRequest. 'FheCourthasissued theNoticeillegallyasaFih

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

)... ' .....'' .'.

youpayelemuotmt8<uoweIn Tfieamoustyouoweiadudopenaltio, Yonal

Page1of2 -'> >>

hosr//- .usu coud.govrstcDocknqrockerimiay.cpx?DocketNo=loooos8o

SUPPLEM ENT TO M OTION TO VOID

neCo< ilNo.013681-1IQ hasfotmdthattheindividualincometaxratesare

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DueProcessandordezingtheCornmissionertorespondwii apl= toenforcetlneCourt's

USCA Case//14-1114 Document#1504649

SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO VOID NOTICE

authorityonorjurisdiction overthiscase. A11law sazppoztstheproposikont

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

judgmentan say,m te ormo anorer in1ng(

hasbeenundersubmissionsinceApril.Now weknow thereason.Jurisdictionisalwaysat

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TheCourtmustnotattempttoholdatrial,butmustinsteadgram summaryjudo ent,

MOTION FOR AN ORDER

SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ORDER

OCe 9. SUPPLEG NTTOMOTIONFORAN

Anda mungkin juga menyukai