UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORTHERN NEW YORK William M. Greene y Karen M. Greene ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO, 08-cv-0280 (LEK/DRH) ) : US. DISTRICT COURT Internal Revenue Service ) Pact Defendant ) JUL 07 2008 } LAWRENCE K. BAERMAN, CLERK ALBANY NOTICE TO THE COURT OF WAVER OF LIABILITY 1. Qui tam (i.e., Latin for "he who sues in this matter for the king as for himself") Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene offer this statement of “Notice To ‘The Court Of Waver Of Liability” with respect to the actions of both the United States District Court Clerk and the United States Attorney, Norther District of New York. 2. This “Notice To The Court Of Waver Of Liability” with respect to the actions of the United States District Court Clerk(s) is offered concerning the failure to have entered the Exhibits number one through forty-three with respect to both Docket No. 1 and Docket No. 6 prior to July 1% 2008. 3. As explained to the USDC Clerk on July 1* 2008, qui tam Plaintiffs believe that the absence of evidence in support of their claim is significant because all of their Requests For Preliminary Injunctive Relief have been Denied.4, Following that July 1 2008 conversation with the Court Clerk(s) they have made the recent corrections to include the Exhibits, but qui tam Plaintiffs believe that they should submit some kind of Notice To The Court that is non-accusatory but highlights the fact up until this point, Exhibits submitted in connection with this case included the document that was submitted to the United States Senate Finance Committee Meeting which was later suppressed by the IRS (Exhibit 3), David Cay Johnston’s September 17, 2003 The New York Times article in which the IRS publically announced that they were responding to WTP Petitions with enforcement actions (Exhibit 4), and the copy of IRS Forms 668-A(ICS) Notice of Levy dated January 3, 2008, served upon the Plaintiffs’ Employer, along with an attached letter notifying the employer that “This will attach to all funds due Karen Greene. Once you are in receipt of this levy you can not issue Karen Greene an advance. The only funds allowed to be deducted are State fees” (Exhibit 37) and without the moneys we were contracted for in terms of operating expenses it thereby put the Plaintiffs out of work back in January. 5. To explain further, among the Exhibits which were not entered in connection with Docket No. I and Docket No. 6 was Exhibit 3, which is a copy of a letter from Senator Inouye’s office, dated June 26, 1989, stating that “Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes." This Exhibit was originally submitted by Robert L. Schulz, Chairman, We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc., to the United States Senate Finance Committee,"Taxpayer Beware: Schemes, Scams and Fraud." April 5, 2001, along with nineteen other exhibits attached to the official record of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session on IRS oversight, April 5, 2001. Y 4.F 49:S.HRG. 107-77, item Number: 1038-A, as pages 117-124, and is an exhibit which qui tam Plaintiffs have put forth in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (ie., Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees), and have outlined, for example, in the First Cause of Action in terms of the violation of the spirit and intent of the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 42 U.S.C. § 1994, and in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 241 involving the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. § 1031 upon the United States, as outlined in paragraph #20 of their complaint and the first Cause of Action the suppression of evidence, as evidenced by its omission from the official record of the April 5, 2001 Senate Finance Committee hearing, the Government Contractor (the IRS), with knowledge and forethought, “actually not potentially” committed acts of retaliation against the People, thereby violating the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiffs as Americans and Christians, and as evidenced by the falsification of damages (which itself appears to constitute a crime in terms of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (ie., whistleblowers against corruption in government)) to qualify for a complaint under Article III in the related § 6700 Suit against the Plaintiffs’ participating organization (as indicated in paragraph #4 of their complaint) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim even occurred within this District Court in the attempt to create a false presumption involving fraud to escape answering honest questions put forth regarding the Constitutional restriction against a direct un-apportioned tax on labor