Memorandum Asserting Rights

Tags(For Charles F. Conces)

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

Civil No. 1:05CV0713

Judge Gordon J. Quist

Vs.
Defendant,
Charles Conces,
Individually,
D/b/a Chairman of the Lawmen, Public Interest Groups, an unincorporated organization
________________________________________________________________/
Charles F. Conces,
Prose,
9523 Pine Hill Dr.,
Battle Creek, Michigan

USA Plaintiff,
Chief Counsel of Internal Revenue Service,
Name Unknown
Address Unknown

__________________________________________________________________/
Michael S. Raum, ND Bar No. 05676, Trial Attorney, Tax Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7238, Washington, D.C. 20044,
_________________________________________________________________/
MEMORANDUM AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS

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

Memorandum and Assertion of Rights, to this Honorable Court.
The Defendant, Charles F. Conces, hereby declares and asserts the Rights to which he is entitled. Preliminary
understanding of the Courts authority is basic to the assertion of rights:
The Court is obliged to follow precedence decisions as stated in Faye Anast
asoff vs. United States of America, 8th Circuit Court, 2000: It is on this account that our law is deemed certain, and
founded in permanent principles, and not dependant on the caprice or will of judges. A more alarming doctrine
could not be promulgated by any American court, than that it was at liberty to disregard all former rules and
decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference to the settled course of antecedent principles.
The United States District Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (see Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition) and their
power is limited by precedent decisions.
While in a court of general jurisdiction, there is a presumption that the judge has subjectmatter jurisdiction, such
is not the case in courts of limited jurisdiction. In all courts of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption of
subjectmatter jurisdiction. State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986).
In Anastasoff v. United States, (8th Circuit, 2000), The judicial power of the United States is limited by the
doctrine of precedence.
Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot act beyond the power delegated to them. If they act beyond that
authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are [254 U.S. 348,
354] not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340 Old Wayne Life Assn
v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8 , 27 Sup. Ct. 236. (underline emphasis added)
1. Defendant asserts his right to reject the Magistrate Judge, Hugh Brenneman, as the presiding judge in this civil case. See
Rules of Civil Procedure. Charles F. Conces has previously done so, and does, here and now, reject said Magistrate Judge
as the presiding judge in this case.
2. Defendant is entitled to his Constitutional rights. Charles F. Conces does, hereby, assert his 4th Amendment rights to be
secure in his person, property, papers, effects, etc. and further asserts that he will not violate any other persons
Constitutional rights to be secure in their person, property, papers, effects, etc.
Some precedent decisions affecting the assertion of Constitutional rights in court are:
It is true that the constitutional claim would warrant convening a threejudge court and that if a single judge
rejects the statutory claim, a threejudge court must be called to consider the constitutional issue. Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 US 528 at 545, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S Ct, 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974).
Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the
assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local
practice. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). It has long been established that a State may not impose a
penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Frost v. Railroad Commission of
California, 271 U.S. 583.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land.
that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.

Any law

Boydv.US,116U.S.616:ThecourtistoprotectagainstanyencroachmentofConstitutionallysecuredliberties.
Mirandav.Arizona,384U.S.436:WhererightssecuredbytheConstitutionareinvolved,therecanbenorulemakingor
legislation,whichwouldabrogatethem.
3.The record shows that DOJ attorneys violated Charles F. Conces due process rights by not obtaining the prerequisite
authorization for the civil suit as per 26 USC 7401 and falsifying the record. Thomas Curteman and Michael Raum
committedfraudthereafterbycoveringupthelie,statedbyMichaelRauminthecomplaintandamendedcomplaintthatthe
authorizationshadbeenobtained.
Shushanv.UnitedStates,117F.2d110(CA5):Notrusteehasmoresacreddutiesthanapublicofficialandanyschemeto
obtainanadvantagebycorruptingsuchandonemustinthefederallawbeconsideredaschemetodefraud.117F.2d,at
115.
Morrisonv.Coddington,662P.2d.155,135Ariz.480(1983):Fraudanddeceitmayarisefromsilencewherethereisa
dutytospeakthetruth,aswellasfromspeakinganuntruth.
Defendant hereby asserts his right to due process under the Constitution and precedence decisions. Defendant also
asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge to make a ruling based on these facts and precedence.The cannons for a
judgeinclude:Ajudgeshouldavoideventheappearanceofimproprietyinallofhisorheractivities.
TheCourtinPAF,Inc.vs.BAProperties,Inc.,N.D.Va.1998,24F.Supp.2d545,held:Authorizationrequiredbysection
ofInternalRevenueCoderequiringgovernmentauthorizationforanycivilactionforthecollectionorrecoveryof
taxes,orofanyfine,penalty,orforfeitureisjurisdictionalifclaimantfailstoshowcompliancewiththestatute
eitherbythepleadingsor,wheretheissueisjoined,byproof,thenthecourtmustdismissthecase.
This Court should have dismissed this case, as the jurisdictional authorization was challenged, and the DOJ refused to
respond.JudgeQuistispresumedtoknowthelaw.ConcesrepeatedlychallengedtheDOJattorneysonthatjurisdictional
questionandrepeatedlyaskediftheDOJattorneyshadobtainedthe7401authorizations,andrepeatedlytheyrefusedto
answeruntilConceswasabletogatherenoughinformationtoprovethattheyhadnotdoneso.
TheCourtinU.S.vs.One1972Cadillac,CoupeDeville,2DoorHardtop,IDNo.6D47R2Q238129,E.D.Ky.1973,355F.
Supp.513,held:ProvisionofthissectionthatcivilactionsmaynotbecommencedunlessSecretaryofTreasury
or his delegate authorizes or sanctions it andAttorney General or his delegate directs that it be commenced is
jurisdictional.
The Court in U.S. vs. TwentyTwo Firearms, D.C.Colo. 1979, 463 F. Supp. 730, held: In absence of a denial,
authorization of the Secretary or his delegate and the direction of the Attorney General or his delegate to
commence forfeiture proceeding by means of which government sought to declare firearms forfeit could be
presumed,however,allegationsofauthoritytoproceedanddirectiontocommencetheactionaredenied,issues
areputtoproofandconditionsprecedentshallnotbepresumed.
TherecordwasfalsifiedbytheDOJattorneys.
TherecordmustshowthatthestatutewascompliedwithInreMarriageofStefiniw,253Ill.App.3d196,625
N.E.2d358(1stDist.1993).Undernopossibleview,however,ofthefindingsweareconsideringcantheybeheld
toconstituteacompliancewiththestatute,sincetheymerelyembodyconflictingstatementsofcounsel
concerningthefactsastheysupposethemtobeandtheirappreciationofthelawwhichtheydeemapplicable,
therebeing,therefore,noattemptwhatevertostatetheultimatefactsbyaconsiderationofwhichwewouldbe

abletoconcludewhetherornotthejudgmentwaswarranted.GonzalesvBuist,(04/01/12)224U.S.126,56L.Ed.
693,32S.Ct.463.
TherecordofthecaseshowsthattheDOJattorneysfalsifiedtherecord.
Ajudgmentischaracterizedasvoidandmaybecollaterallyattackedatanytimewheretherecorditselffurnished
thefactswhichestablishthatthecourtactedwithoutjurisdiction.Peoplev.Byrnes,34Ill.App.3d983,341N.E.2d
729(2ndDist.1975).
The April 11, 2006, filing by Charles Conces, challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Court disregarded those
challenges, and in doing so, denied the rights of Charles Conces to a settlement of those jurisdictional challenges, in
violationofDueProcess.
Judgmentsenteredwherecourtlackedeithersubjectmatterorpersonaljurisdiction,orthatwereotherwise
enteredinviolationofdueprocessoflaw,mustbesetaside,JaffeandAsherv.VanBrunt,S.D.N.Y.1994.158
F.R.D.278.
TheDOJattorneyscommittedfraudbyfalsifyingtherecord.
Voidorderwhichisoneenteredbycourtwhichlacksjurisdictionoverpartiesorsubjectmatter,orlacksinherent
powertoenterjudgment,ororderprocuredbyfraud,canbeattackedatanytime,inanycourt,eitherdirectlyor
collaterally,providedthatpartyisproperlybeforecourt,Peopleexrel.Brzicav.VillageofLakeBarrington,644
N.E.2d66(Ill.App.2Dist.1994).(underlineemphasis)Avoidjudgment,asweallknow,groundsnorights,forms
nodefensetoactionstakenthereunder,andisvulnerabletoanymannerofcollateralattack(thushere,by).No
statuteoflimitationsorreposerunsonitsholdings,themattersthoughttobesettledtherebyarenotres
judicata,andyearslater,whenthememoriesmayhavegrowndimandrightslongbeenregardedasvested,any
disgruntledlitigantmayreopentheoldwoundandoncemoreprobeitsdepths.Anditisthenasthoughtrialand
adjudicationhadneverbeen.10/13/58FRITTSv.KRUGH.SUPREMECOURTOFMICHIGAN,92N.W.2d604,354
Mich.97.(underlineemphasis)Fraudvitiatesthemostsolemncontracts,documents,andevenjudgments
UnitedStatesv.Throckmorton,98U.S.61.(underlineemphasis)Lackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionisanon
waivabledefectwhichmayberaisedatanystageoftheproceedings.Statev.LaPier,961P.2d1274,289Mont.
392,1998MT174(1998).Rulingmadeinabsenceofsubjectmatterjurisdictionisanullity.Statev.Dvorak,574
N.W.2d492,254Neb.87(1998).
4. Charles Conces asserts his right to a fair and impartial judge. If Judge Quist does not follow the law, i.e. vacate the
Orders issued in this case, due to fraud worked on 26 USC 7401, then it must be concluded that Quist is not following
statutoryprocedure,andlosessubjectmatterjurisdiction.Thecannonsforajudgeinclude:Ajudgeshouldavoideven
theappearanceofimproprietyinallofhisorheractivities.
28U.S.Code455:Anyjustice,judgeormagistrateoftheUnitedStatesshalldisqualifyhimselfinanyproceeding
inwhichhisimpartialitymightreasonablybequestionedHeshalldisqualifyhimselfinthefollowing
circumstances:WherehehasapersonalbiasorprejudiceconcerningapartySubjectmatterjurisdictionfails:if
ajudgedoesnotfollowstatutoryprocedure,andwherethejudgedoesnotactimpartially,ArmstrongvObucino,
300Ill140,143(1921),Bracyv.Warden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,1997).(underlineemphasis)Not
everyactionbyanyjudgeisinexerciseofhisjudicialfunction.ItisnotajudicialfunctionforaJudgetocommit
anintentionaltorteventhoughthetortoccursintheCourthouse.WhenajudgeactsasaTrespasseroftheLaw,
whenajudgedoesnotfollowthelaw,thejudgelosessubjectmatterjurisdictionandtheJudgesordersarevoid,
ofnolegalforceoreffect.YatesVs.VillageofHoffmanEstates,Illinois,209F.Supp.757(N.D.Ill.1962).(underline
emphasis)Avoidjudgmentisonerenderedbyacourtwhichlackedpersonalorsubjectmatterjurisdictionor
actedinamannerinconsistentwithdueprocess.InreEstateofWells,983P.2d279,(Kan.App.1999).(underline
emphasis)Resjudicataconsequenceswillnotbeappliedtoavoidjudgmentwhichisonewhich,fromits

inception,isacompletenullityandwithoutlegaleffectAllcockv.Allcock437N.E.2d392(Ill.App.3Dist.1982).
(underlineemphasis)
Judge Quist violated precedence law and the rights of Charles Conces, when he stated that he would not tolerate
jurisdictionalchallenges.ItisreasonabletoconcludethatJudgeQuisthasnotactedimpartiallyandfairly,andmustrecuse
himself.ItisreasonabletoconcludethatJudgeQuisthasactedinanextremelybiasedandunfairway,andthatQuisthas
nointentionofactingimpartiallyinfutureproceedings.Thecannonsforajudgeinclude:Ajudgeshouldavoideventhe
appearanceofimproprietyinallofhisorheractivities.
Voidjudgmentisoneenteredbycourtthatlackstheinherentpowertomakeorentertheparticularorder
involved,anditmaybeattackedatanytime,eitherdirectlyorcollaterallysuchajudgmentwouldbeanullity.
Peoplev.Rolland581N.E.2d907,(Ill.App.4Dist.1991).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent
power to make or enter particular order involved such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or
collaterally.Peoplev.Sales,551N.E.2d1359(Ill.App.2Dist.1990).ConcesalsofindsthatJudgeQuistsstatements
attheJune21,2006,hearing,revealthatJudgeQuisthadnotreadnorunderstoodthepleadingsofConces.Quiststated,
AndIjustrejectedthemostrecentdocuments.ItisthesamestuffthatIseeallthetimefrompeoplethatbelieve
foronereasonoranothertheydonthavetopaytheirtaxes.NoneofConcespleadingshaveeverstatedorinferred
that people should not pay their taxes. Then Quist listed a number of tax protester arguments, and Conces had to
repeatedlystatethathehasneverusedthosearguments.Quisthadhismindmadeupbeforehehadevenlookedatthe
ConcespleadingsandcourtrulingsthatConceshadpresentedtotheCourt.
5.Concesassertshisrighttothefindingsandconclusionsonallmattersoffact,law,andanydiscretionarymatters.See
April 11, 2006, Defendant filing which stated, This Court lacks personal jurisdiction to hear this case. See
Undisputed Facts, in particular numbers 8 through 18. Judge Quist refused to present findings and conclusions, in
violationofprecedentdecision:SouthCarolinaStatePortAuthorityv.FederalMaritimeCommissionet al.certiorari
totheunitedstatescourtofappealsforthefourthcircuitNo.0146.ArguedFebruary25,2002DecidedMay28,
2002:Theproceedingsareadversaryinnature.Theyareconductedbeforeatrieroffactinsulatedfrompolitical
influence.Apartyisentitledtopresenthiscasebyoralordocumentaryevidence,andthetranscriptoftestimony
andexhibitstogetherwiththepleadingsconstitutestheexclusiverecordfordecision.Thepartiesareentitledto
know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.
(underlineemphasis)
CharlesConcesherebyassertshisrighttoanimpartialjudgewhowillfollowprecedencelaw,fromwhichtheCourtderives
itspowers.Anastoffv.UnitedStates(8thCircuit,2000),ThejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesislimitedbythe
doctrineofprecedence.
6.CharlesConces,herebyassertshisrighttochallengejurisdictionandtherighttohavetheCourtfollowprecedenceand
stopallproceedingsuntilthejurisdictionalquestionsaresettled.SeeApril11,2006filingforundisputedfacts,numbered8
through18.
Howeverlatethisobjectionhasbeenmade,ormaybemadeinanycause,inaninferiororappellatecourtofthe
UnitedStates,itmustbeconsideredanddecided,beforeanycourtcanmoveonefurtherstepinthecauseas
anymovementisnecessarilytheexerciseofjurisdiction.Jurisdictionisthepowertohearanddeterminethe
subjectmatterincontroversybetweenpartiestoasuit,toadjudicateorexerciseanyjudicialpoweroverthemthe
questionis,whetheronthecasebeforeacourt,theiractionisjudicialorextrajudicialwithorwithoutthe
authorityoflaw,torenderajudgmentordecreeupontherightsofthelitigantparties.StateofRhodeIslandv.
Com.ofMassachusetts,37U.S.657,718(1838).(underlineemphasis)

TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtandnumerousfederalcourtshaveruledthatwhenjurisdictionischallenged,itmustbe
proven,ontherecord,orthecasemustbedismissed. See:Melov.U.S.,505F2d,1026.Oncejurisdictionhasbeen
challenged,thecourtcannotproceedwhenitclearlyappearsthatthecourtlacksjurisdiction. Thecourthasno
authoritytoreachmerits,but,rather,shoulddismissthecase. andseeJoycev.U.S.,474F2d215.
7.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttohavethisCourtoflimitedjurisdiction,adherestrictlytoitsstatutoryauthority,andbe
presentedwithstatutoryauthorityforactions.
Whereasacourtofgeneraljurisdictionispresumedtohavejurisdictiontorenderanyjudgmentinacasearising
underthecommonlaw,thereisnosuchpresumptionofjurisdictionincasesarisingunderaspecificstatutory
grantofauthority.Inthelatercasestherecordmustrevealthefactswhichauthorizethecourttoact.Zookv.
Spannaus,34Ill.2d612,217N.E.2d789(1966).
Subjectmatterjurisdictionfails:ifajudgedoesnotfollowstatutoryprocedure,andwherethejudgedoesnotact
impartially,ArmstrongvObucino,300Ill140,143(1921),BracyvWarden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,
1997).(underlineemphasis)
8.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttohavealljurisdictionalmattersandquestionsonjurisdictionsettledbeforetheCourt
proceedsfurther.JudgeQuistdeniedmyrequesttosettlejurisdictionalquestionsandproceededwithoutevenapauseor
seriousreflectiononthejurisdictionmatters.
Howeverlatethisobjectionhasbeenmade,ormaybemadeinanycause,inaninferiororappellatecourtofthe
UnitedStates,itmustbeconsideredanddecided,beforeanycourtcanmoveonefurtherstepinthecauseas
anymovementisnecessarilytheexerciseofjurisdiction.STATEOFRHODEISLANDv.COM.OF
MASSACHUSETTS,37U.S.657,718(1838).(underlineemphasis)Anastasoffv.UnitedStates(8thCircuit,2000),
ThejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesislimitedbythedoctrineofprecedence.
9.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttobeinformedifanycorrectionsarenecessary.SeeHainesv.Kerner,404U.S.519
(1972)andPlaskeyv.CIA,953F.2d25,Courterrsifcourtdismissesproselitigantwithoutinstructionsofhow
pleadingsaredeficientandhowtorepairpleadings.
JudgeQuistandJudgeBrennemanhavedeniedeverymotionthatCharlesConceshasmade,withoutprovidingopportunity
for any corrections and without even stating that any corrections were necessary. Such violations of precedence, violates
therightsofCharlesConces.
10. Charles Conces asserts his right to substantial justice. Substantial justice requires truth as to facts and law.The DOJ
attorneysliedandmademanyfalsestatementsinthecomplaintandamendedcomplaint,inviolationofRule11andRule8.
FollowingthesimpleguideofRule8(f)thatallpleadingsshallbesoconstruedastodosubstantialjustice,
wehavenodoubtthatpetitionerscomplaintadequatelysetforthaclaimandgavetherespondentsfairnoticeof
itsbasis.TheFederalRulesrejecttheapproachthatpleadingisagameofskillinwhichonemisstepbycounsel
maybedecisivetotheoutcomeandaccepttheprinciplethatthepurposeofpleadingistofacilitateaproper
decisiononthemerits.Cf.Matyv.GrasselliChemicalCo.
303U.S.197.Conleyv.Gibson,355U.S.41,45(1957).
CharlesConcesassertshisrighttoconcludethattheprecedencelaw,statedinthefactualInquiryandpresentedtothe
DOJattorneys,isgoodcaselawandhasnotbeenoverturned.Thoseprecedencecasesestablishedthattherequirement
ofapportionmentisstilloperativeintheU.S.Constitution,andthatthe16thAmendmentdidnotgrantanyadditionaltaxing
powers to the federal government, nor did it bring any new subjects under the federal governments taxing powers. The
DOJattorneysremainedsilentonthefactualinquiry.

11.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttoknowthecauseofactionthatgaverisetothecase.Withoutacauseofactionlisted,
thecasecannotbefiledinDistrictCourt.TheDOJattorneyscited28USCsection1340,asthecauseofaction.Einhorn
clearly states the fallacy of such a claim. The DOJ attorneys are presumed to know the law, and show incompetence or
deceit,bymakingsuchaclaim.
DistrictCourthasnojurisdictionunder28USCS1340ofactionbytaxpayersseekinginjunctiveandmandamus
relief against Internal Revenue Service on basis of taxpayers interpretation of IRS regulation since 1340
provides that District Court shall have jurisdiction of action arising under anyAct of Congress and not actions
arisingunderagencyregulationswhicharewithoutforceoflaw.Einhornv.DeWitt,(1980,CA5Fla),618F.2d347,
802USTCP9486,46AFTR2d5093.(underlineemphasis)
Section1340doesnotgiverisetoacauseofaction,becauseifitdidso,thentheUnitedStateswouldhaveacauseof
actionagainsteverycitizenoftheUnitedStates.Thatistotalandutternonsense.
Avoidjudgmentisasimulatedjudgmentdevoidofanypotencybecauseofjurisdictionaldefectsonly,inthe
courtrenderingitanddefectofjurisdictionmayrelatetoapartyorparties,thesubjectmatter,thecauseof
action,thequestiontobedetermined,orrelieftobegranted,DavidsonChevrolet,Inc.v.CityandCountyof
Denver,330P.2d1116,certioraridenied79S.Ct.609,359U.S.926,3L.Ed.2d629(Colo.1958).(underline
emphasis)Thecauseofactionlistednolaw.jurisdictionoftheCourtsoftheUnitedStatesmeansalaw
providingintermsofrevenuethatistosay,alawwhichisdirectlytraceabletothepowergrantedtoCongressby
8,ArticleI,oftheConstitution,tolayandcollecttaxes,duties,imposts,andexcises.'USvHill,123US681,686
(1887).(underlineemphasis)Onlybythefilingofaninformationwhichcomplieswiththismandatorystatutory
requirementcanthedistrictcourtobtainsubjectmatterjurisdictioninthefirstinstancewhichthenempowersthe
courttoadjudicatethematterspresentedtoit.Buisv.State,792P.2d427at431,(Okl.Cr.1990).
CharlesConcesassertshisrighttohavetheDistrictCourtadheretoprecedence.Therewasnotrueplaintiffnameonthe
complaint,andnoverificationbyacomplainingparty.Assuch,noactionhasbeencommenced.
Complaintmustidentifyatleastoneplaintiffbytruenameotherwisenoactionhasbeencommenced.Roev
NewYork(1970,SDNY)49F.R.D.279,14FRServ2d437,8ALRFed670.
12.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttoconfrontwitnessesagainstdefendant.TheDOJneverpresentedanywitnesses.
Noinstructionwasasked,but,aswehavesaid,thejudgetoldthejurythattheyweretoregardonlytheevidence
admittedbyhim,notstatementsofcounsel,Holtv.UnitedStates,(10/31/10)218U.S.245at250,54L.Ed.1021,
31S.Ct.2.Anditisremarkable,wesubmit,thatinacaseofthismagnitude,witheverymeansandresourceat
theircommand,thecomplainants,afteryearsofeffortandsearchinnearandinthemostremotepaths,andin
everycollateralbyway,nowrestthechargesofconspiracyandofgullibilityagainstthesewitnesses,onlyupon
thebarestatementsofcounsel.DOLBEARv.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANY.MOLECULARTELEPHONE
COMPANYV.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANY.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANYV.MOLECULAR
TELEPHONECOMPANY.CLAYCOMMERCIALTELEPHONECOMPANYV.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANY.
PEOPLESTELEPHONECOMPANYV.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANY.OVERLANDTELEPHONECOMPANY
V.AMERICANBELLTELEPHONECOMPANY.(PARTTWOTHREE)(03/19/88)126U.S.1,31L.Ed.863,8S.Ct.778.
Statementsofcounselinbrieforinargumentarenotsufficientformotiontodismissorforsummaryjudgment.
Trinseyv.Pagliaro,D.C.Pa.1964,229F.Supp.647.
Aswehavesaidofotherunswornstatementswhichwerenotpartoftherecordandthereforecouldnothave
beenconsideredbythetrialcourt:Manifestly,[suchstatements]cannotbeproperlyconsideredbyusinthe
dispositionof[a]case.Adickesv.KressandCo.,398U.S.144158,n.16

13.CharlesConcesassertshisDueProcessrightsundertheprovisionsofthe14thAmendment.Conceshastherightto
theconclusionthatthejudgmentsandordersofJudgeQuistarenullandvoid,becausetheDOJattorneysdidnotobtain
the required authorizations under 26 USC 7401. Additionally, Judge Quist, at the June 21, 2006, hearing made an
unexplainablestatement,Well,werewaypastthatnowbecauseyoudidntrespondtothecomplaint.Andsothere
wasadefaultContrarytoJudgeQuistsstatement,Concesdid,infact,respondtothecomplaintandalsorespondedto
theamendedcomplaint,paragraphbyparagraph,rebuttingthemanyfalsestatementsbytheDOJattorney,MichaelRaum.
The complaint should have been dismissed right there and then, if for no other reason than the many provably false
statementsbytheDOJattorneyswhohadnowitnessesorevidencefortheirallegations.
A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit
elsewhere.Pennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714,732733(1878).Dueprocessrequiresthatthedefendantbegivenadequate
noticeofthesuit,Mullanev.CentralHanoverTrustCo.,339U.S.306,313314(1950),andbesubjecttothepersonal
jurisdictionofthecourt,InternationalShoeCo.v.Washington,326U.S.310(1945).WorldWideVolkswagenCorp.v.
Woodson,444US286,291(1980)NationalExchangeBankv.Wiley,195US257(1904)PennoyervNeff,95US714
(1878).
Judgmentsenteredwherecourtlackedeithersubjectmatterorpersonaljurisdiction,orthatwereotherwise
enteredinviolationofdueprocessoflaw,mustbesetaside,JaffeandAsherv.VanBrunt,S.D.N.Y.1994.158
F.R.D.278.Decisionisvoidonthefaceofthejudgmentrollwhenfromfourcornersofthatroll,itmaybe
determinedthatatleastoneofthreeelementsofjurisdictionwasabsent:(1)jurisdictionoverparties,(2)
jurisdictionoversubjectmatter,or(3)jurisdictionalpowertopronounceparticularjudgmentthatwasrendered,
B&CInvestments,Inc.v.F&MNat.Bank&Trust,903P.2d339(Okla.App.Div.3,1995).Anastoffv.UnitedStates
(8thCircuit,2000),ThejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesislimitedbythedoctrineofprecedence.
14. Charles Conces asserts his right to the truth, concerning 26 USC 7608 language, which states that (all) enforcement
revenue agents, by whatever title, are authorized to enforce only subtitle E and the commodities subject to tax, and that
onlyCriminalInvestigatorsoftheIntelligenceDivisionareauthorizedtoenforcetheothersubtitles.TheDOJattorneysand
JudgeQuistfalselystatedthatthewholeof26USC7608wasacriminalstatuteanddidnotapplytoallInternalRevenue
enforcementagents.ThiswasadeliberatedistortionofthetruthbytheDOJattorneysandJudgeQuist,andQuistdidnot
explainhisdismissalofConcesMotion,otherthantheuseofthatfalsestatement.
Gouldv.Gould,245U.S.151(1917):Intheinterpretationofstatuteslevyingtaxesitistheestablishedrulenotto
extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their
operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most
stronglyagainstthegovernment,andinfavorofthecitizen.UnitedStatesv.Wigglesworth,2Story,369,Fed.Cas.
No.16,690AmericanNet&TwineCo.v.Worthington,141U.S.468,474,12S.Sup.Ct.55Benzigerv.US,192
U.S.38,55,24S.Sup.Ct.189.AlsoseeSpreckelsSugarRefiningCo.v.McClain,192U.S.397,417(1904).
When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon of statutory construction that courts must
presumethatalegislaturesaysinastatutewhatitmeansandmeansinastatutewhatitsaysthereisalsothe
last,andjudicialinquiryiscomplete.ConnecticutNationalBankv.Germain,503US249,L..Ed2nd391[1992]
15.CharlesConcesassertshisrighttohonestrepresentationsandauthorizedrepresentativesoftheDepartmentofJustice.
MichaelRaumandThomasCurtemanhavebeenactivelyengagedinthesubversionofthelawsandtheConstitutionofthe
United States, and underAmendment 14, section 3 of the Constitution, cannot hold Office, having committed perjury on
theirOathstodefendandupholdthelawsandtheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.Thesubversionoflawandviolationof
Due Process under the 14thAmendment, were not mere oversights, nor mere neglect they were deliberate, calculated,

willful, and knowing acts of subversion and rebellion against the laws, i.e., 26 USC 7401, against the common law, and
againsttheDueProcessofthe14thAmendmenttotheConstitution.
Wherefore,Defendant,CharlesF.Conces,respectfullyrequeststhatthisHonorableCourtinformhimofanyerrorsinthis
pleading,asperHainesv.Kerner,404US519(1972)andPlaskeyv.CIA,953F.2d25,sothatanyneededcorrections
canbedulymade.
Date:November28,2006
Theaboverightsareassertedandallrightsarepreserved,
Signature:___________________________
PrintedName:CharlesF.Conces
CertificateofService
IherebycertifythatonNovember28,2006,Imadeserviceofthesedocuments,MEMORANDUMANDASSERTION OF
RIGHTS,byfirstclassmail,postageprepaid,caseno.1:05cv0739onthefollowingattorney:
MichaelS.Raum,TrialAttorney,TaxDivision,
U.S.DepartmentofJustice,P.O.Box7238,
Washington,D.C.20044
Signed:___________________________
CharlesF.Conces
Dated:November28,2006