Mooney v. United States

 
DOCKET NO.
OP. BELOW
SUBJECT
Pro Se

Question(s) Presented

1. “Who has Standing against the Mooneys as the Plaintiff and being the [] Real Party of Interest in the ‘Courts of the United States’ arising under Article III Sections 1 and 2—is [it] the ‘United States of America;’ or, is it the ‘United States?’”

2. “In the ‘District of Minnesota’ is the tribunal ‘United States District Court’ created under Article I Section 8 Clause 9 of the Constitution of the United States as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 132 exercising the ‘judicial power of a district court. . . may be exercised by a single judge’ (28 U.S.C. § 132(c))?”

3. “In the ‘District of Minnesota’ is the tribunal ‘United States District Court’ a bona fide Article III ‘Court of the United States’ arising under Article III of the Constitution of the United States exercising the ‘judicial Power of the United States’ in Section 1 and in Section 2 exercising ‘[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States?’”

4. “Aren’t all agencies and federal agencies required to publish in the ‘Federal Register’ all documents, being their Rules and Regulations, having a ‘general applicability and legal effect’ if they have any application to the Mooneys and the People of the several States?”

5. “Aren’t all ‘Courts of the United States’ [a]rising under Article III Sections 1 and 2 exercising the ‘judicial Power of the United States;’ and, all tribunals established under Article I Section 8 Clause 9; and, all administrative courts, commissions, agencies, federal agencies, independent establishments and other similar ‘administrative entities’ bound that ‘[t]he contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed’ if so published in the Federal Register?”

6. “Isn’t the Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) bound by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 that only ‘substantive regulations,’ i.e., ‘legislative rules’ having the ‘force and effect of law’ can ‘create a private right of action’ against ‘People of the several States’ domiciled in one of the several States if IRS complies with all of the procedures of the ‘Predicate of Formal Rule Making;’ or, if the IRS complies with all of the procedures of the ‘Predicate of Informal Rulemaking’ codified in 5 U.S.C. § 553?”

7. “Doesn’t all of the Part 301 regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (‘CFR’) of Title 26 that was held to be limited to only ‘housekeeping regulations’ preclude all ‘obligations’ of the Mooneys to the IRS?”

8. “Isn’t it unconstitutional for the IRS to send collection letters including alleged financial obligation to the IRS with threats of Liens and Levies to the Mooneys without disclosing and identifying the specific regulations that comply with ‘general applicability and legal effect’ that are published in the ‘Federal Register’ to support the IRS’s claim?”

9. “Aren’t the Mooneys absolved legally of all alleged financial obligations to the IRS if there are no ‘Substantive Regulations’ published in the Federal Register as mandated to support the IRS’s claim is true, i.e., ‘[n]o document required under 5(a) of the Federal Register Act of 1935 [“general applicability and legal effect”] to be published in the Federal Register shall be valid as against any person who has not had actual knowledge thereof.’”

10. “Isn’t it unconstitutional or illegal for the IRS to send collection letters including alleged financial obligation to the IRS with threats of Liens and Levies letters to the Mooneys citing only United States Code (‘U.S.C.’) sections which ha[ve] not been authorized by Congress for the IRS to use?”

11. “How can the Mooneys or any of the People of the several States have ‘Notice’ of what specific Rules and Regulations published in the Federal Register has the ‘force and effect of law’ if the IRS does NOT identify each rule and regulation as being either a ‘substantive regulation, i.e., legislative rule’ having the ‘force and effect of law;’ or, being a ‘housekeeping regulation;’ or, being an ‘interpretative regulation;’ or, a ‘procedural regulation?’”

Posts About this Case

Date
Proceedings and Orders
June 23, 2021
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
October 4, 2021
Petition DENIED.