1. “Can the IRS/United States government Respondent and lower courts consistently call U.S. Supreme Court standing case precedent (stare decisis) on the definition of ‘income,’ as ‘legally frivolous’ and lacking legal merit, despite clear conflicts between this court’s past rulings, and the lower courts rulings, and in IRS administrative actions in taxing, assessments and levies on millions of Americans, and not be bound by such standing precedent in these actions, especially without findings offset and conclusions of law?” 2. “Can the IRS/United States government Respondent, despite clear conflicts between this court’s stare decisis and the lower courts, consistently call anything it wants going into any business or other account any American owns as all ‘lawful income’ when assessing countless numbers ofAmericans for alleged tax liability, and take ALL assets and living… i.e., can the IRS/government Respondent assess ‘all that comes in’, as ‘income’ or wages, and levy the same, creating a hyperinflated tax assessment to justify complete taking of all assets to live on, especially without pre-assessment proof of debt and findings of fact and conclusions of law?” 3. “Can the IRS/United States government Respondent, despite clear conflicts between this court’s stare decisis and the lower courts, merely presume without clear, unambiguous evidence and definitions, that the 1913, 16th Amendment authorized a ‘new’ tax on millions of private American’s wages, salary or compensation for service, despite this court’s stare decisis case on the actual purpose for the 16th Amendment, and historically understood definition of ‘income’, countering the wage tax presumption, with Respondent and lower courts labeling said precedent as ‘legally frivolous,’ without findings of fact and conclusions of law?” 4. “Can the IRS/United States government Respondent levy ALLPetitioner’s (and all American’s similarly situated) social security, all veteran’s protected disability compensation, and all business assets based on an unverified and unproven assessment, effectively destroying Petitioner’s ability to survive?” 5. “Can the courts and all district attorneys, et al, routinely dismiss, manipulate and control all access and proceedings of the Grand Jury process, including denying access to private Americans despite filing a NOTICE under FRCP 6(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 4 of various crimes occurring, and contrary to this court’s US. v Williams 1992 decision on the purpose for the Grand Jury?”
