WONDERS OF THE WAYBACK MACHINE versus ST JUDE of lost causes against the IRS in re USDC District of...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:12-cr-00193-VLB ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BENJAMIN GREEN, III ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) ) Benjamin Green, III ) COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM ) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, ) FAILURE TO STATE A ) JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON v. ) WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; ) WANT OF JURISDICTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) IN PERSONAM Assignee of U.S.A. ) ) FRCRP RULE 12(b) 2,3 (A)(B) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) MOTION to ABATE THE INDICTMENT Plaintiffs/ Counter Defendants. ) )

Benjamin Green III REPLY TO PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S FRCrP RULE 12(b) 2,3 (A)(B) MOTION TO ABATE THE INDICTMENT FASHIONED AS A COMMON LAW COUNTER CLAIM: FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY

BE GRANTED WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM I, Benjamin Green III, in esse and Sui juris (the living being free-man able to contract), the

sole secured beneficiary of the debtor trust organization BENJAMIN GREEN III,

(DEFENDANT Counter-Plaintiff) being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of

perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746 as follows:

1 of 13

1. Defendant Counter Plaintiff Benjamin Green III, in esse and sui juris is

before this court in a special, restricted appearance in propria persona along with

PUBLIC DEFENDER assistance of counsel in a general appearance representing

“BENJAMIN GREEN, III”; and as such as of right this is Benjamin Green III REPLY TO

PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE (filed as Docket 144 herein 11-06-2013)

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S FRCrP RULE 12(b) 2,3

(A)(B) MOTION TO ABATE THE INDICTMENT FASHIONED AS A COMMON LAW

COUNTER CLAIM: FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM, with an

extension of the prior exhibits thereto attached 1 through 5 herein extended herein.

2. That Defendant Counter Plaintiff reply is in opposition and generally denies

the allegations and presumptive characterizations proffered to the Court by

PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE including various footnotes thereto and

attach a copy of the Court docket herein listing the orders and motions (See Exhibit 6);

and with all due respect to the Court, in consideration of the prior motions and orders

this motion is subject to my altered status regarding exhibits 1 and 4 accordingly..

3. That Benjamin Green III (Counter-Plaintiff) claims that he, as the in esse sui

juris (a non-corporate, non-artificial, living man and American Freeman/Citizen of the

United States as per Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being able to contract without

exception) is non-surety for BENJAMIN GREEN III (DEFENDANT) despite what DOJ

wrongly alleges as to somehow quote: "purportedly subscribes to the 'redemption' or

'strawman' theory, which has been roundly rejected by the IRS and the courts." with

reference to “Buczek v. Bruce, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55409, *3-5 (W.D.N.Y. May 19,

2011); United States v. Buczek, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17271, *4-6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 26,

2 of 13

2010). “ as if such cases were to pose a supposed description of what the nature of

what Defendant / Counter Plaintiff subscribes to; and as to that said, PROSECUTOR

SEAN BEATY’S assumption and presumption could not be further from the truth.

4. PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S has wrongly conflated properly punishable

offenses of the "Sovereign Movement" and "Redemption Movement" to which

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Benjamin Green III absolutely does not embrace or

subscribes.

5. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff contends that no person except the Pope and or

Queen Elizabeth II may be considered "Sovereign" per se.

6. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff contends he, as a Private American Citizen of the

United States, is merely one of the sovereign "We the People" referenced in the

Preamble of the Constitution of the United States and related Constitution of the State

of Connecticut.

7. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff contends he privately resides at Common Law in

the State of Connecticut as a non-statutory natural person and de jure Citizen of the

United States of America fully protected by section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

8. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff also contends that the DOJ and its agents

actively participate in propagating and participating in the spread of wrongful process

under the rubric of both the "Sovereign" and Redemption" movements; and that such

participation in entrapment has been done since the "Montana Freeman Movement"

espoused the wrongful belief in the doctrine of individual sovereignty that rejected the

authority of the federal government of the United States. For the "Montana Freemen "

as they all rejected their actual surety-ship status and acted without use of available law

of their respective birth state to change that "U.S. citizen," quasi corporate status.

3 of 13

Therefore, as per their mis-conceived system of government in "Justus Township,"

including their own versions of common-law court de jure, banking, and credit ended in

the "Ruby Ridge" execution action by DOJ - Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Benjamin

Green III absolutely rejects every aspect of such wrongful ideology, as it does not apply

to the complex process under the Internal Revenue code associated with an "Original

Issue Discount" done as an internet electronic process that is much different herein.

9. That I have reviewed the cases referenced by PROSECUTOR SEAN

BEATY’S RESPONSE and find n on that apply herein “For a description of the “Original

Issue Discount (OID)”variant of this theory, which the defendant asserted here, see

United States v. Morris, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11928, *3-4 (D. Colo. 2011); United

States v. Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2783, *14-17 (D. Cal. 2010).”

10. That as for the cynical use of civil action United States v. Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 2783, *14-17 (D. Cal. 2010), yes recently, the Department of Justice has successfully

brought several injunction cases against tax return preparers who utilize the 1099-OID scheme.

In August 2009, the District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary

injunction against Teresa Marty individually and through her return preparation

business Advance Financial Services, LLC, barring Marty and her business from acting

as a federal return preparer. United States v. Marty, 09-cv-006000, 2009 WL 3111823

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2009); http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-tax-

937.html. The court found that Marty prepared and filed fraudulent tax returns with false

federal tax withholding. The court ordered Marty to provide the United States with a

customer list and to notify her customers of the court’s order , without any criminal

conviction of her is a red herring in that based upon information and belief Defendant/

Counter-Plaintiff contends that Teresa was an agent of the IRS and Government in her

4 of 13

capacity to entrap filers for use by the Obama Administration of instilling terror into U.S.

Citizens, as has been long intend since the Clinton Administration to install a single-

payer health system under the control of the Internal Revenue Service and United

States Treasury Secretary.

11. That as for the Gemini Twin nature of the relationship between Benjamin

Green III, in esse and Sui juris (the living being free-man able to contract) born July 12,

1968, now as the sole secured beneficiary of the debtor trust organization BENJAMIN

GREEN III having been created on July 23, 1968 is challenged by PROSECUTOR

SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE with reference to Callan v. Paulson, 2009 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 31987, 3-4, Fn. 2 (D. Conn. 2009) (quoting Callan v. Internal Rev. Serv. Comm’r,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12403, 2007 WL 552219 at *2) as if it were to apply despite what

Movant cites in the Transcript from the civil case proceeding shown n Exhibit 3; and

that were that so as PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE suggests then since

the DOJ contends there is no difference between the names of "BENJAMIN GREEN III"

and "Benjamin Green III," let the DOJ simply alter the name of Defendant/Counter

Plaintiff on its indictment to read "Benjamin Green III."

12. In the matter of my need to focus on resolving issues related to my estate,

on or about October 26, 2013, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Benjamin Green III and the

surety issue came across an article on a man in Ohio that had been presumed dead in

a Probate proceeding and when appearing as a living being to be declared alive he was

denied and as such is the emphasis on the Artificial nature of the Big letter name as it

relates to the living being or surety nature as applies herein (see Exhibit 7).

13. That in consideration of my probate and estate status here in Connecticut,

as of November 1, 2013 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Benjamin Green III, in esse sui

5 of 13

juris American Freeman, as of right availed the relief under the substantive due process

provided for and by the Connecticut Probate Law Title 45a; and

14. That Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff has duly provided notice to the DOJ, the

Court and to his birth state of Connecticut that he, by operation of law, has duly

released the State of its trustee obligation without consideration NUNC PRO TUNC of

Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff's prior existing surety-ship for the named entity BENJAMIN

GREEN III having been duly registered as a statutory entity with ownership title and

trusteeship of the State of Connecticut as it was appointed under unilateral adhesion

contract under seal on July 23, 1968, by the natural birth mother.

15. Further, on November 1, 2013, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff also affirmed and

provided due notice to DOJ and the State of Connecticut of rescission of surety-ship

signatures NUNC PRO TUNC back to on or after July 23, 1968; and therefore,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Benjamin Green III in esse sui juris (a non-corporate, non-

artificial, living man and American Freeman/Citizen of the United States as per Section

1 of the 14th Amendment being able to contract without exception) with natural birth

date of July 12, 1968 is no longer the surety indenture, Gemini twin of the statutory

debtor entity BENJAMIN GREEN III, a statutory "U.S. Citizen." Thereafter since

November 1, 2013, natural born citizen Benjamin Green III has been a non-statutory,

private citizen of the United States of America and therefore is as foreign to the extra-

constitutional, statutorily imposed, martial process before this court.

16. That in the discontinuance of “Surety” matter raised by PROSECUTOR

SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE, I concur and request that, as no flight risk, I remain on

release under my own recognizance as provide for in the FRCrP Rule 12(g) so that I

may continue to transact my defense and related actions after Tuesday 11/12/2013.

6 of 13

17. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is entitled as of right to civil process for civilian

American Citizens under this Article 4 Section 2 and related Bill of Rights/Constitutional

rights as otherwise broadened by the provision of section 1 of the 14th Amendment

enacted in 1868. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff has a Constitutional right to be given a

civilian due process to the exclusion of a martial due process forcefully imposed upon

debtor(s) belligerents and rebels residing in occupied territories under rule of de facto

military government.

18. Further, in regards to the report of the DOJ in regards to the “Martial Law

Flag” despite 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3 (that still only specifies 48 stars), is that

created by President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed

on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to

law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United

States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides." The Attorney General

reported that quote:

“The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

19. Further, since the DOJ contends there is no difference between the non-gold

fringed flag of the Republic of the United States of America as defined in 4 USC 1, and

the gold-fringed flag of the Commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces as

defined in 840-10, section 2-3b, c(4), let the DOJ request the Court remove said gold-

fringed flag to be replaced with a non-gold fringed flag of the Republic defined above.

7 of 13

20. The simple remedy to this particular controversy thereby eliminates any

consideration for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss with Counterclaim at

Common Law, he now is to be given every appearance of due process of law for

civilians (pursuant to the Fifth Amendment) who are natural born Citizens of the United

States (pursuant to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment). Refusal to alter the

spelling of the name of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff on the government's indictment and

refusal to replace the court's martial flag with the civilian flag of the Republic of the

United States validates Defendant/Counter Plaintiff's claims in his Motion to Dismiss.

AS AND FOR THE REPLY TO PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY’S RESPONSE AS TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF DEFENDANT COUNTER-PLAINTIFF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST ENTRAPMENT SITUATION OF SELF INCRIMINATION

21. As for the Issue of a Fifth amendment infringement perpetrated by agents of

the USA in regards to the Indictment herein that relied upon the internet tax filing

process with use of IRS’s software “FILING INFORMATION RETURNS

ELECTRONICALLY” (F.I.R.E.) proprietary software used in conjunction with

Defendant’s own commercially available software in preparation of the return in

question without aid of an accountant.

22. That Court testimony of the actual IRS webmaster () on the stand on

Thursday (11/07/13) and Friday (11/8/ 13) entered into evidence supposed F.I.R.E.

2012 webpage shot from the Internet Wayback Machine (IWM) to suggest that that was

what Defendant Counter-Plaintiff saw when he entered the system;

23. That Defendant Counter-Plaintiff sought out the expertise of the Investigative

Journalist Kevin Richard Powell of Atlanta Georgia who in the past has published

8 of 13

exposé with use of the Internet Wayback Machine and who produced a calendar

record of IRS F.I.R.E. screen captures by IWM from 2004 through 2013 (see Exhibit 8).

24. That as shown in Court by the Webmaster as supposedly what Defendant

Counter-Plaintiff saw in 2009 was 2012 is herein depicted from the Exhibit 8 record on

say the May 15, 2012 captured home screen page stored by the IWM shows:

25. That the Webmaster on August 20, 2013 as herein depicted from the Exhibit

8 record presently uses an intense warning as shown captured home screen page

stored by the IWM shows:

9 of 13

26. That the "GLARING" warning shown on August 20, 2013 above is more

intense that even that shown on the November 7, 2004 captured home screen page

stored by the IWM shows in the chronological presentation of Exhibit 8 as follows:

27. However, to the contrary what Defendant Counter-Plaintiff according to the

IWM record shown as Exhibit 8, what would have possibly seen in 2009 that had been

installed before 2010 in 2010 in fact was without a “GLARING” warning as shown in

2004 or 2013 above referenced, in 2010 is shown on the May 28, 2010 captured home

screen page stored by the IWM shows considerably smaller “WARNING” typeface than

depicted by the Webmaster using the May 15, 2012 exhibit at trial as follows :

10 of 13

28. The fifth amendment entrapment infringement issue question is that when the

2004 "GLARING" HARD WARNING was taken down to become the post 2009 screen

2010 soft-warning with the "login " immediately on the left for the user that beckons use

rather than as done on the 2004 right side lower down as a button with an instruction

piece first not last is I think a 5th Amendment violation of intentional entrapment and

whereby the taking down of the glaring warning coaxed a user to enter as a matter of

curiosity - like entering onto a spiders web or onto flypaper, The Obama Administration

from 2009 having caught the filers on the web to make a public record of convictions to

terrorize US Citizens, reinstalled a larger “WARNING” typeface in 2012 and even more

so 2013 "GLARING" HARD WARNING than had been there during the Bush

Administration in 2004.

29. NOTE that if the IRS Webmaster had left the F.I.R.E. GLARING WARNING

as they then in 2012 enlarged and thereafter reinstalled to emphasize the urgent nature

of the warning to prevent any the curiosity seeking aspects in 2013, now as in 2004

has been cut short even-though they still have the login button on top and on the left

rather than on the right and at the bottom as done in 2004 that placed instructions over

than of registration and login.

30. Based upon information and belief, In criminal law, entrapment is when a law

enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense that the person would have

otherwise unlikely committed. It is a type of conduct that is frowned upon, and thus in

many jurisdictions is a defense against criminal liability; and depending on the law in

the jurisdiction, the prosecution may be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he

was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

11 of 13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_liability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

31. Further, that in law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation

designed to catch a person committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-

enforcement officer or cooperative member of the public play a role as criminal partner

or potential victim and go along with a suspect's actions to gather evidence of the

suspect's wrongdoing as above shown from evidence of screen shoots from 2004 thru

2013, and that sting operations as alleged done with Teresa Marty are abundantly

easier when on the web created flypaper present with use of F.I.R.E. shown above.

WHEREFORE, it is now incumbent upon this Court to order

• the USA and PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY to disclose all exculpatory internal

records eliminating the suspicion of affirmative actions by the I.R.S. and or Treasury

Department to entrap using its agents and or electronic means as with F.I.R.E.

• That DEFENDANT / Counter-plaintiff be permitted to submit the screen shot

evidence shown herein as Exhibit 8 as rebuttal to 2012 screen shoot trial evidence

submitted by PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY;

• That DEFENDANT / Counter-plaintiff be granted a continuance in the trial until this

motion is completed;

• That the I.R.S. F.I.R.E. Webmaster be recalled to testify as to the Exhibit 8

evidence;

• That USA and PROSECUTOR SEAN BEATY be granted a “Sur-reply” opportunity

as to the REPLY; and

• The DEFENDANT / Counter-plaintiff be granted different and other relief the Court

deems necessary to meet FRCrP Rule 12 generally and specifically

12 of 13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceptive




OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S FRCrP RULE 12(b) 2,3 (A)(B) MOTION TO ABATE THE INDICTMENT FASHIONED AS A COMMON LAW

COUNTER CLAIM: FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM

Exhibit 6

3:12-cr-00193-VLB All Defendants USA v. Green Date filed: 09/06/2012 Date of last filing: 11/08/2013

APPEAL,EFILE,PROSE

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12-cr-00193-VLB-1

Case title: USA v. Green Date Filed: 09/06/2012

Assigned to: Judge Vanessa L. Bryant

Defendant (1)Benjamin Green, III represented by Sarah A. L. Merriam

Federal Public Defender's Office - NH 265 Church St., Suite 702New Haven, CT 06510-7005203-498-4200Fax: 203-498-4207Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDesignation: Public Defender

Pending Counts DispositionFALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS; False, Fictitious or Fradulent Claims against the United States (1)CORRUPT OR FORCIBLE INTERFERENCE; Attempt to Interfere with the Adminsitration for the Internal Revenue Laws (2)

Highest Offense Level (Opening)Felony

DOCKET Page 1 of 20

Terminated Counts DispositionNone

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)None

Complaints DispositionNone

PlaintiffUSA represented by Deirdre M. Daly

U.S. Attorney's Office-NH 157 Church St., 23rd floorNew Haven, CT 06510203-821-3700Fax: 203-773-5376Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sean Beaty U. S. Attorney's Office-CT 157 Church Street25th FloorNew Haven, CT 06519202-616-2717Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Wines U.S. Attorney's Office-NH 157 Church St., 23rd floorNew Haven, CT 06510203-821-3700Fax: 203-821-3829Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEYPRO HAC VICEATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DOCKET Page 2 of 20

Date Filed # Docket Text

09/06/2012 1 SEALED INDICTMENT returned before Judge Ellen Bree Burns. Arrest Warrant to issue, returned before grand jury number N-12-1 as to Benjamin Green, III (1) count(s) 1, 2. (Perez, J.) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/27/2012 Arrest of Benjamin Green, III (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 3 Oral MOTION to Dismiss Case, Oral MOTION to be released from custody by Benjamin Green, III. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 4 ORAL MOTION to Unseal Indictment by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 5 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons: Initial Appearance; Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 9/27/2012; denying 3 Oral Motion to Dismiss the indictment, filed by Benjamin Green, III (1); denying 3 Oral Motion to be release from custody, filed by Benjamin Green, III; Attorney Sarah Merriam Appointed as Standby Counsel; Granting 4 Oral Motion to Unseal the indictment as to Benjamin Green III (1) filed by USA; Detention Hearing held on 9/27/2012; ( Detention Hearing Continued for 9/28/2012 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom Four-Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons). Defendant detained. 45 minutes(Court Reporter Baldwin.) (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 CASE UNSEALED as to Benjamin Green, III (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 6 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/27/2012. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/27/2012 7 ORDER SCHEDULING A DETENTION as to Benjamin Green, III. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 9/27/2012. Detention Hearing set for 9/28/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom Four-Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

09/28/2012 8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons:Detention Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 9/28/2012, ( Detention Hearing set for 10/4/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom Four-Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. Defendant detained. 12 minutes(Court Reporter Baldwin.)(Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/02/2012 9 MOTION for Leave To Proceed Pro Se, MOTION for Sarah A. L. Merriam to Withdraw as Attorney by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

10/02/2012 10 MOTION for Pretrial Detention by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/02/2012)

DOCKET Page 3 of 20

10/04/2012 12 SCHEDULING ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III Discovery Motions due 10/18/2012 Substantive Motions due 10/23/2012 Government Response due 10/30/2012 Jury Selection set for 12/4/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 10/4/2012. (Blough, B.) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/04/2012 13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons:Arraignment as to Benjamin Green III (1) Count 1,2 held on 10/4/2012, Bond Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 10/4/2012, Detention Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 10/4/2012, Not Guilty Plea entered by Benjamin Green III (1) Count 1,2. Jury Selection set for 12/4/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Bond set as to Benjamin Green III (1) 100,000.00 Non-surety. Defendant to surrender passport by 4:00 p.m. on 10/5/2012. and 50 minutes(Court Reporter M. Marshall.)(Blough, B.) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/04/2012 14 SEALED BAIL INFORMATION SHEET by Benjamin Green, III (Blough, B.) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/04/2012 15 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Benjamin Green, III. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 10/4/2012. (Blough, B.) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/04/2012 16 APPEARANCE Bond Entered as to Benjamin Green, III in amount of $ $100,000.00 Non-surety. (Blough, B.) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/05/2012 11 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION as to Benjamin Green, III. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Motion Hearing re: 9 is set for 10.30.12 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on October 5, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

10/09/2012 17 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Jury Selection set for 12/4/2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

10/10/2012 18 ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III re 17 Calendar Entry: Substantive Motions, List of Witnesses, Anticipated Duration of Trial, a Preliminary Exhibit List, and Request for Charge are due October 29, 2012, Jury Interrogatories and Voir Dire Questions are due November 8, 2012, and Three Trial Binders (one original and two copies) with complete Exhibit List are to be filed by noon on November 23, 2012 in the Clerk's Office. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on October 10, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

10/11/2012 19 Receipt for Surrender of Passport as to Benjamin Green, III Passport Number 420729343 issued by USA Receipt Number 41 (Attachments: # 1 Notice)

DOCKET Page 4 of 20

(Corriette, M.) (Entered: 10/11/2012)

10/17/2012 20 MOTION for Order Re: To Adjust Deadline for Filing of Discovery Motions To Comport with Standing Order (filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/17/2012 21 First MOTION to Continue Deadline for Submission of List of Witnesses, Anticipated Duration of Trial, Preliminary Exhibit List, and Request for Charge (filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 10/17/2012)

10/18/2012 22 NOTICE of Intent to Introduce Expert Testimony by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

10/22/2012 23 MOTION for Order to Exclude Speedy Trial Time by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act)(Beaty, Sean) Modified on 10/25/2012 to correct event. (D'Onofrio, B.). (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 24 ORDER, denied as moot 10 Motion for Pretrial Detention in light of the release order as to Benjamin Green III (1). Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 10/22/2012. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/22/2012 25 MOTION to Dismiss (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 10/22/2012)

10/23/2012 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Benjamin Green, III. Responses due by 11/13/2012 (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/23/2012 27 MOTION to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, debt previously discharged and not triable issue before the court by Benjamin Green, III. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/24/2012 28 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 25 MOTION to Dismiss (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel) (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/24/2012 29 RESPONSE/REPLY by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 9 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Proposed Colloquy for October 30, 2012 Faretta Hearing) (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

10/26/2012 30 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 27 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1Attachment A to US's Opposition to Green's 2nd and 3rd Motions to Dismiss)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

10/26/2012 31 ORDER denying 25 Motion to Dismiss as to Benjamin Green III (1). The defendant's motion is nonsensical and does not articulate any factual or legal basis. See Jones v. Natn'l Commc'ns & Surveillance Networks, 266 Fed.Appx.31, 2008 WL 482599 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on October 26, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

DOCKET Page 5 of 20

10/29/2012 32 Proposed Jury Instructions by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

10/29/2012 33 Proposed Voir Dire by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

10/29/2012 34 NOTICE of Anticipated Length of Trial and Preliminary List of Witnesses by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

10/29/2012 35 Preliminary Exhibit List by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/29/2012)

10/31/2012 36 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Faretta Hearing is reset from 10.30.12 to 11.27.12 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on October 31, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

11/01/2012 37 ORDER Returning Submission as Deficient: Various documents returned to Benjamin Green, III. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/01/2012. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 38 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 39 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 40 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 39 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel),38 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed by Standby Counsel)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 41 RESPONSE/REPLY by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 9 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, 29 Reply/Response Misc US's Supplemental Proposed Faretta Colloquy (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/01/2012 42 MOTION for Hearing on an Expedited Basis (filed by stand-by counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/01/2012)

11/07/2012 43 Memorandum in Support by Benjamin Green, III re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 39 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel), 27 MOTION to Dismiss, 25 MOTION to Dismiss (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel), 38 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed by Standby Counsel) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Errata B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit)(Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

DOCKET Page 6 of 20

11/07/2012 44 REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Benjamin Green, III re 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 39 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel), 27 MOTION to Dismiss, 38 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed by Standby Counsel) (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

11/07/2012 45 MOTION for Discovery (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel) by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/07/2012)

11/08/2012 46 ORDER VACATING 17 Calendar Entry and 18 Order setting pretrial filing deadlines as to Benjamin Green, III. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on November 8, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 11/08/2012)

11/13/2012 47 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 45 MOTION for Discovery (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel) (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 11/13/2012)

11/21/2012 48 RESPONSE/REPLY by Benjamin Green, III re 36 Calendar Entry, Objection to Hearing (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

11/26/2012 49 ORDER granting 20 Defendant's Motion for Order as to Benjamin Green III (1). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on November 26, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012 50 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Continue as to Benjamin Green III (1). The Court will set a schedule following the Faretta Hearing. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on November 26, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/26/2012 51 ORDER denying without prejudice 45 Motion for Discovery as to Benjamin Green III (1). The defendant is to read and comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including the defendant's reciprocal discovery duty. Requests are to be supported by a memorandum of law with citations to the rule upon which his request is predicated. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on November 26, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

11/27/2012 52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant: taking under advisement 26 , 27 , 38 , 39 Motions to Dismiss as to Benjamin Green III (1); granting 9 Motion for Leave To Proceed Pro Se as to Benjamin Green III (1); granting 9 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Sarah A. L. Merriam withdrawn from case as to Benjamin Green III (1); granting 23 Motion for Order to Exclude Speedy Trial Time as to Benjamin Green III (1); Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/27/2012 re 9 MOTION for Leave To Proceed Pro Se, MOTION for Sarah A. L. Merriam to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Benjamin Green, III; 26 , 27 , 38 , 39 MOTIONS to Dismiss; 23 Motion for Order to Exclude Speedy Trial Time. 53 minutes(Court Reporter S.Baldwin(ECRO).) (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

11/28/2012 53 NOTICE by Prior Standby Counsel by Benjamin Green, III (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 11/28/2012)

DOCKET Page 7 of 20

12/04/2012 Terminate Hearings as to Benjamin Green, III: Jury Selection set for 12/4/12 continued. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/12/2012 54 MOTION to Re-Open the Court's Faretta Inquiry re 9 MOTION for Leave To Proceed Pro Se MOTION for Sarah A. L. Merriam to Withdraw as Attorney, 29Reply/Response Misc, 41 Reply/Response Misc by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 12/12/2012)

02/01/2013 55 ORDER granting in part and denying without prejudice in part 54 Government's Motion to Re-Open Faretta Hearing and for Psychological Evaluation as to Benjamin Green III (1). See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on February 1, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2013: # 1 REPLACEMENT PDF) (LaLone, L.). (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/01/2013 56 ORDER for Psychological/Psychiatric Evaluation as to Benjamin Green, III re 55 Order on Motion by the Government for a Psychological Evaluation. See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on February 1, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

02/04/2013 57 Docket Entry Correction as to Benjamin Green, III re 55 Order on Motion, REPLACEMENT PDF (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

02/04/2013 58 ORDER finding as moot 42 Motion for Hearing as to Benjamin Green III (1). Faretta hearing was held by the Court on November 27, 2012. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on February 4, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 02/04/2013)

03/25/2013 59 MOTION for Hearing by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 03/25/2013)

03/27/2013 60 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Hearing as to Benjamin Green III (1). The Arraignment and Competency Hearing will take place on April 24, 2013 at 3:30pm. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on March 27, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 03/27/2013)

03/28/2013 61 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Arraignment and Competency Hearing set for 4/24/2013 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

04/11/2013 62 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 04/11/2013)

04/11/2013 63 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sarah A. L. Merriam appearing for Benjamin Green, III (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 04/11/2013)

04/15/2013 64 AFFIDAVIT by Benjamin Green, III as to Benjamin Green, III, re: 62MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by USA (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/16/2013)

DOCKET Page 8 of 20

04/17/2013 65 ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III re 64 Affidavit filed by Benjamin Green, III: The defendant is directed to submit a complete net worth statement with the Probation Office by April 23, 2013. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on April 17, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

04/18/2013 66 ORDER finding as moot 62 Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel for Benjamin Green III (1) in light of Attorney Merriam's appearance on 4.11.13 63 and the defendant's 4.15.13 Affidavit 64 . Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on April 18, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/18/2013 Terminate Arraignment and Competency Hearing 61 as to Benjamin Green, III: In light of the defendant's request for the appointment of counsel 64 , the Faretta hearing to determine his competency to waive his right to counsel for April 24, 2013 is marked off. The parties are directed to schedule the Arraignment before Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on April 18, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 04/18/2013)

04/22/2013 67 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Benjamin Green, III ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

Arraignment set for 4/24/2013 10:00 AM in West Courtroom, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Thomas P. Smith (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/22/2013 68 ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III. The parties have advised the Magistrate Judge that a not guilty plea was previously entered on behalf of this defendant. Accordingly, the arraignment scheduled for April 24, 2013 is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on April 22, 2013. (Slitt, M.) (Entered: 04/22/2013)

04/23/2013 69 Second MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 04/23/2013)

04/26/2013 70 MOTION to dismiss for lack of speedy trial by Benjamin Green, III. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 04/26/2013)

04/30/2013 71 MOTION for Hearing by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 04/30/2013)

05/01/2013 72 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 70 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to US's Opposition to Green's Motion to Dismiss for STA Violation)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 05/01/2013)

05/03/2013 73 USM Return of Service on Arrest Warrant executed as to Benjamin Green, III on 09/27/2012 (Grady, B.) Modified on 5/6/2013 to correct execution date (Grady, B.). (Entered: 05/06/2013)

05/16/2013 74 SEALED CJA 23 Financial Affidavit by Benjamin Green, III (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

DOCKET Page 9 of 20

06/17/2013 75 Second MOTION for Hearing , Third MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 06/17/2013)

06/18/2013 76 ORDER granting 71 & 75 Motion for Hearing as to Benjamin Green III (1). Hearing as to defendant's competency to represent himself at trial is scheduled for June 26, 2013 at 3:30. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on June 18, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 06/18/2013)

06/19/2013 77 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Competency Hearing set for 6/26/2013 at 03:30 PM in North Courtroom, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 06/19/2013)

06/26/2013 78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant:Competency Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 6/26/2013, Court Appoints Attorney Sarah A. Merriam to represent defendant. 46 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).)(LaLone, L.) (Entered: 06/26/2013)

06/26/2013 79 Courts Marked Witness List by Benjamin Green, III (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 06/27/2013)

07/15/2013 80 MOTION for Order Re: Setting Trial Date by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/20/2013 81 NOTICE of Defendant's Position Regarding Speedy Trial Act by Benjamin Green, III (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 07/20/2013)

07/22/2013 82 MOTION for Hearing by Telephone by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 07/22/2013)

07/30/2013 83 First MOTION to Continue Jury Selection, Third MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Continue and Excluding Time under the Speedy Trial Act)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 07/30/2013)

08/02/2013 84 NOTICE OF HEARING in case as to Benjamin Green, III RE: 83 First MOTION to Continue Jury Selection and Third MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial. If the defendant has not filed a signed speedy trial waiver by August 6, 2013, the defendant is ordered to appear with counsel. Motion Hearing is set for 8/7/2013 at 3:30 PM in North Courtroom, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant.(Butler, Ayanna) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/07/2013 85 ORDER denying 80 Motion for Order as to Benjamin Green III (1) as moot. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/7/13.(Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

DOCKET Page 10 of 20

08/07/2013 86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant:Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 8/7/2013 re 83 First MOTION to Continue Jury Selection Third MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial filed by USA Total Time: 1 hours and 8 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).)(LaLone, L.) (Entered: 08/08/2013)

08/09/2013 87 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Hearing as to Benjamin Green III (1). See Dkt No. 84.Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8-9-13.(Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/09/2013)

08/26/2013 88 ORDER: The Court grants in part and denies as moot in part 69 United States' Second Motion for an Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial and 75 United States' Second Motion For a Hearing and Third Motion for An Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/26/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/26/2013 89 ORDER: The Court grants 83 United States' First Motion to Continue Jury Selection and Third Motion for an Order Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/26/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/26/2013 90 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III: The Court sets the following amended case management deadlines: The parties' Joint Trial Memorandum (JTM) is due by 10/15/2013 and Jury Selection is set for 11/5/13 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Dates for the presentation of evidence will be designated following the submission of the JTM. Counsel shall be prepared to present evidence on any day during the month of November, 2013. All proposed Voir Dire questions, proposed Jury Charge Instructions and verdict forms, and all Motions in Limine must be filed along with the JTM. All evidentiary objections raised in the JTM must be the subject of a Motion in Limine supported by applicable Second Circuit precedent and accompanied by the exhibit to which there is an objection. Each party shall file three exhibit binders and any courtroom technology requests with the courtroom deputy, Loraine LaLone no later than October 29, 2013. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/26/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/26/2013 91 ORDER: denying as moot 70 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Speedy Trial, pursuant to the Court's Orders excluding time from the Speedy Trial Clock. See [Dkt. 52 ], [Dkt. 88 ], [Dkt. 89 ]. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/26/13. (Rock, K.) Modified on to create link to 52 , 88 , 898/27/2013 (LaLone, L.). (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/27/2013 92 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO


IDENTIFICATION. Jury Selection set for 11/5/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

09/05/2013 93 ORDER Returning Submission as Deficient: documents returned to Benjamin Green, III as to Benjamin Green, III Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/5/13. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 09/05/2013)

09/05/2013 94 ORDER setting Faretta hearing for 10/2/13 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. See attached Order and Exhibit.Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/5/13.(Rock, K.) (Entered: 09/05/2013)

09/06/2013 95 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR as to Benjamin Green, III: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Faretta Hearing set for 10/2/2013 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/09/2013 96 RESPONSE/REPLY by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 94 Order US'sOpposition to the October 2, 2013 Faretta Hearing (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/10/2013 97 MOTION To Permit Defendant To Proceed Pro Se by Benjamin Green, III. (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/10/2013 98 ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III: In response to 96 the United States' Opposition to the October 2, 2013 Faretta Hearing, the Court notes that it found Defendant competent to stand trial, but did not make a finding that Defendant is competent to represent himself, as Defendant's agreement to continued representation by appointed counsel obviated the need to make such finding. In regards to Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b) Disclosures, Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b) Disclosures will be due on or before 10/4/13, unless Defendant files an objection to this deadline on or before this Friday, 9/13/13. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 9/10/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/13/2013 99 RESPONSE/REPLY by Benjamin Green, III re 98 Order,, (Merriam, Sarah) (Entered: 09/13/2013)

09/16/2013 100 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: as to Benjamin Green, III Type of Hearing: Faretta Hearing. Held on 11/27/12 before Judge VANESSA L. BRYANT. Court Reporter: eScribers. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without


redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 10/7/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/17/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2013. (Gottlieb, J) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

09/16/2013 101 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: as to Benjamin Green, III Type of Hearing: Competency Hearing. Held on 06/26/13 before Judge VANESSA L. BRYANT. Court Reporter: eScribers. IMPORTANT NOTICE - REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 10/7/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/17/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/15/2013. (Gottlieb, J) (Entered: 09/16/2013)

09/20/2013 102 RESPONSE/REPLY by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 97 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief US's Response to Green's Second Motion to Proceed Pro Se (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 09/20/2013)


09/30/2013 104 NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 09/30/2013)

10/01/2013 105 ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Benjamin Green III (1) for the reasons stated in the Government's Opposition Dkt.No. 29 . Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10-1-13. (Bryant, Vanessa) Modified on 10/2/2013 to create link (LaLone, L.). (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/01/2013 106 ORDER denying 27 Motion to Dismiss as to Benjamin Green III (1)for the reasons stated in the Government's Opposition Dkt.No.29. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10-1-30. (Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/01/2013 107 ORDER denying 38 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Benjamin Green III (1) for the reasons stated in the Government's opposition. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10-1-13. (Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/01/2013 108 ORDER denying 39 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Benjamin Green III (1) for the reasons stated in the Government's Opposition Dkt.No. 40. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10-1-13.(Bryant, Vanessa) Modified on


10/2/2013 date signed 10/1/13 (LaLone, L.). (Entered: 10/01/2013)

10/02/2013 109 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant: granting 97Motion To Permit Defendant To Proceed Pro Se as to Benjamin Green III (1); Court appoints Sarah A. L. Merriam as standby counsel; Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 10/2/2013 re 97 MOTION To Permit Defendant To Proceed Pro Se filed by Benjamin Green, III.. 31 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).) (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 10/02/2013)

10/07/2013 110 First MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/07/2013 111 MOTION for Opening Statements by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/07/2013 112 EXHIBIT (Attachment A to US's First Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence) by Benjamin Green, III re 110 First MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence (Beaty, Sean) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/16/2013: # 1 REPLACEMENT PDF) (Grady, B.). (Entered: 10/07/2013)

10/11/2013 115 Appearance Pro Se as to Benjamin Green, III. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/11/2013 116 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Benjamin Green, III. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Signed by Benjamin Green III, # 3 Exhibit A Primer on Money)(Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/11/2013 117 AFFIDAVIT by Benjamin Green, III as to Benjamin Green, III 116 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Benjamin Green, III (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/11/2013 118 MOTION for Discovery and Inspection by Benjamin Green, III. (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/11/2013 119 Memorandum in Opposition by Benjamin Green, III re 111 MOTION for Opening Statements (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/11/2013 120 Memorandum in Opposition by Benjamin Green, III re 110 First MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence (Malone, P.) (Entered: 10/18/2013)

10/15/2013 113 TRIAL MEMO by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A (Witness List), # 2 Appendix B (Exhibit List), # 3 Appendix C (Proposed Voir Dire), # 4 Appendix D (Proposed Jury Instructions), # 5 Appendix E (Proposed Verdict Form))(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/17/2013 114 NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to US's Supplemental 902(11) Notice)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/17/2013)

10/21/2013 121 TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER as to Benjamin Green, III. The Court sets the following schedule for trial: Jury Selection is set for Tuesday, 11/5/13 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L.


Bryant. The presentation of evidence will commence on Thursday, 11/7/13 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, and will continue on Friday 11/8, Tuesday 11/12, Thursday, 11/14, and Friday 11/15. Trial will begin at 9:30 AM and will conclude at 4:30 PM. The Parties must be present by 9:00 AM to address any evidentiary or other housekeeping matters. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/21/13. (Ives, D) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/21/2013 Set Hearings as to Benjamin Green, III: Jury Trial set for 11/7/2013, 11/8/2013, 11/12/2013, 11/14/2013, and 11/15/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. See order dkt# 121 . (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/21/2013 122 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 118MOTION for Disclosure (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/21/2013 123 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 116MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/23/2013 124 MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11) by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/23/2013)

10/23/2013 125 Proposed Witness List by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/23/2013)


10/28/2013 127 Proposed Voir Dire by USA as to Benjamin Green, III (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/28/2013)

10/30/2013 128 MOTION for Extension of Time to satisfy due process law (no date specified) by Benjamin Green, III. (Payton, R.) (Entered: 10/30/2013)

10/31/2013 129 Emergency MOTION for Hearing for the Purpose of a Limited Faretta Inquiryby USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

10/31/2013 130 ORDER: The Government's 123 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's 116 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction does not respond to all of the arguments raised in 116 the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Government is ORDERED to file a Memorandum of Law, compliant with all applicable rules of procedure, that responds to all arguments raised in the Defendant's 116Motion to Dismiss, by 2:00 PM EDT on Friday, 11/1/13. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/31/13.(Rock, K.) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

10/31/2013 131 ORDER: granting 110 Government's First Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence, as Government Trial Exhibit 21 bears a certification that it is a true copy of the original document maintained in the office of the Town Clerk of the


City of Stratford, which is signed by the Town Clerk. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/31/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

10/31/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 116 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Responses due by 11/1/2013. See order dkt# 130 . (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

10/31/2013 132 ORDER granting 111 Government's Motion for Opening Statements. The parties may each make an opening statement of no more than ten (10) minutes. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/31/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

10/31/2013 133 Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Benjamin Green, III re 116MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

11/01/2013 134 ORDER: The Court sets a hearing on 128 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time and 129 the Government's Emergency Motion for a Faretta Hearing for Monday, 11/4/13 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/1/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 11/01/2013)

11/04/2013 135 Motion Hearing as to 128 MOTION for Extension of Time to satisfy due process law until no date specified, 129 Emergency MOTION for Hearing for the Purpose of a Limited Faretta Inquiry set for 11/4/2013 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 136 ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Government's 124 Motion in Limine. The Motion is DENIED as to Government Trial Exhibits 13A-C for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11). The certification for Exhibits 13A-C, provided by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., does not comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) as it is neither given under oath nor signed under penalty of perjury. The Motion is GRANTED as to Government Trial Exhibits 9A-E, 10, 11 & 11A, 73-74, 77 & 77A, 78, and 79. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/4/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 137 ORDER denying 128 Motion for Extension of Time as to Benjamin Green III (1)as Defendant's application for Taxpayer Advocate Assistance has been declined and the Defendant has both declined the appointment of counsel and acknowledged his continued intent to represent himself. Further, Defendant's challenge to the competency of standby counsel was previously raised and ruled on by the court. The matters at issue are largely factual and Defendant has failed to establish that the matters at issue require knowledge of or expertise in tax law beyond the capability of standby counsel (who is more experienced than the government's counsel)to master. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11-4-13. (Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 138 ORDER granting 129 Motion for Hearing as to Benjamin Green III (1) See Dkt.


No. 134. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11-4-13.(Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 139 ORDER denying 118 Motion for Disclosure as to Benjamin Green III (1)without prejudice as Defendant has failed to specify any relevant discovery the government has failed to produce. For example, the government's exhibit list includes actual tax returns, checks, bank records and other primary documents. The government is not relying on computerized records to prove its charges. Thus the qualifications of IRS data-entry staff have not been shown to be relevant. Further, the Defendant has and may exercise his right of compulsory process. (Bryant, Vanessa) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 140 Amended MOTION in Limine to Admit Bank Records Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11) by USA as to Benjamin Green, III. (Attachments: # 1Attachment A to US's Amended Motion in Limine to Admit Bank Records)(Beaty, Sean) (Entered: 11/04/2013)

11/04/2013 141 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant:Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/4/2013 re 128 MOTION for Extension of Time to satisfy due process law until no date specified filed by Benjamin Green, III, 129 Emergency MOTION for Hearing for the Purpose of a Limited Faretta Inquiry filed by USA. 58 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).)(LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/04/2013 145 Common Law Counterclaim: Failure to state a jurisdictional claim upon which relief may be granted want of jurisdiction in personam by Benjamin Green, III (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/06/2013)

11/05/2013 142 ORDER: The Court Orders the Government to respond to Defendant's Common Law Counterclaim by 5:00 PM on Thursday, 11/7/13. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/5/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/05/2013 143 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant:Jury Selection as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/5/2013, Voir Dire begun on 11/5/2013 Benjamin Green III (1) on Count 1,2 Total Time: 3 hours and 44 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).)(LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/05/2013)

11/06/2013 144 RESPONSE/REPLY by USA as to Benjamin Green, III 145 Common Law Counterclaim: Failure to state a jurisdictional claim upon which relief may be granted want of jurisdiction in personam, re: 142 Order US's Opposition to Green's Seventh Motion to Dismiss (Styled as a "Common Law Counter Claim")(Beaty, Sean) Modified on 11/6/2013 to link to document (Grady, B.). Modified on 11/8/2013 to create association (Grady, B.). (Entered: 11/06/2013)

11/07/2013 146 ORDER denying 116 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Benjamin Green III (1). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/7/13. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013 147 ORDER granting 140 the Government's Motion in Limine to admit Government


Trial Exhibits 13A, 13B, and 13C. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/7/13. (Rock, K.) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013 148 NOTICE OF APPEAL (Interlocutory) by Benjamin Green, III, re: 146 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013 149 INDEX TO RECORD ON APPEAL by Benjamin Green, III re 148 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory, 95 Calendar Entry, 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 35 Exhibit List, 34 Notice (Other), 32 Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge, 119 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 101 Transcript,,,, 46 Order, 91 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 108 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 87 Order on Motion for Hearing, 68 Order, 62 MOTION to Appoint Counsel , 146 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 104 Notice (Other), 121 Scheduling Order,, 39 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel),24 Order on Motion for Pretrial Detention, 5 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Unseal Case, Initial Appearance, Motion Hearing, Detention Hearing, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 147 Order on Motion in Limine, 51 Order on Motion for Discovery, 22 Notice (Other), 125 Witness List, 55 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 83 First MOTION to Continue Jury SelectionThirdMOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial , 69 Second MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial , 100 Transcript,,,, 61 Calendar Entry, 7 Order of Detention, 15 Order Setting Conditions of Release, 140 Amended MOTION in Limine to Admit Bank Records Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11), 105 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, 75 Second MOTION for Hearing Third MOTION for Order Re: Excluding Time Under the Speedy Trial Act for the Commencement of Trial , 113 Trial Memo, 8 Detention Hearing, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, 89 Order on Motion to Continue, Order on Motion for Order,, 60 Order on Motion for Hearing, 90 Scheduling Order,,,, 50 Order on Motion to Continue, 73 USM Return Executed, 99 Reply/Response Misc, 17 Calendar Entry, 110 First MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence, 57 Docket Annotation, 10 MOTION for Pretrial Detention, 4 MOTION to Unseal Case, 27 MOTION to Dismiss, 93Order Returning Submission, 3 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to be realesed from custody, 97 MOTION To Permit Defendant To Proceed Pro Se , 13Arraignment, Bond Hearing, Detention Hearing, Plea Entered, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Bond Set/Reset,,,,,,,,,,,, 82 MOTION for Hearing byTelephone, 117 Affidavit, 29 Reply/Response Misc, 31 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 28 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 70 MOTION to Dismiss, 56 Order, 11 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 86 Motion Hearing, 41Reply/Response Misc, 115 Appearance Pro Se, 124 MOTION in Limine toAdmit Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and 902(11), 12 Scheduling Order, 141 Motion Hearing, 64 Affidavit, 71 MOTION for Hearing , 129Emergency MOTION for Hearing for the Purpose of a Limited Faretta Inquiry,21 First MOTION to Continue Deadline for Submission of List of Witnesses, Anticipated Duration of Trial, Preliminary Exhibit List, and Request for Charge


(filed by Standby Counsel), 143 Jury Selection, Voir Dire Begun,, 20 MOTION for Order Re: To Adjust Deadline for Filing of Discovery Motions To Comport with Standing Order (filed by Standby Counsel), 106 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 54 MOTION to Re-Open the Court's Faretta Inquiry re 9 MOTION for Leave To Proceed Pro Se MOTION for Sarah A. L. Merriam to Withdraw as Attorney, 29 Reply/Response Misc, 41 Reply/Response Misc, 19 Receipt for Passport, 76 Order on Motion for Hearing,, Order on Motion for Order,,, 30Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 16 Bond, 37 Order Returning Submission, 9 MOTION for Leave To Proceed Pro Se MOTION for Sarah A. L. Merriam to Withdraw as Attorney, 132 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1 Indictment (Sealed), 102 Reply/Response Misc, 98 Order,, 23MOTION for Speedy Trial (Motion to Exclude Time), 85 Order on Motion for Order, 59 MOTION for Hearing , 136 Order on Motion in Limine,, 122Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 134 Order, 118 MOTION for Disclosure, 96 Reply/Response Misc, 81 Notice (Other), 52 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, Order on Motion for Order, Motion Hearing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 33 Proposed Voir Dire, 114 Notice (Other), 79 Witness List, 139 Order on Motion for Disclosure,, 40 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 65 Order, 88 Order on Motion for Order,,, 78 Competency Hearing, Set/Clear Flags, 111 MOTION for Opening Statements , 109 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion Hearing,, 67 Notice of Hearing, 44 Reply to Response, 47 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 43 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 116 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 137 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, 45 MOTION for Discovery (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel), 144 Reply/Response Misc, 131 Order on Motion in Limine, 66 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, 36 Calendar Entry, 120 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 80 MOTION for Order Re: Setting Trial Date , 72 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 133 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 126 Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge, 2 Warrant Issued, 135 Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings, 18 Order,, 58 Order on Motion for Hearing, 53 Notice (Other), 94 Order, 130 Order,, 74 Financial Affidavit - CJA23, 25 MOTION to Dismiss (pro se motion, e-filed by Standby Counsel), 128 MOTION for Extension of Time to satisfy due process law until no date specified, 92 Calendar Entry, 63 Attorney Appearance - Defendant, 38 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed by Standby Counsel), 127 Proposed Voir Dire, 112 Exhibit, 84 Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 107 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 123 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 42 MOTION for Hearing on an Expedited Basis (filed by stand-by counsel), 142 Order, 103 Proposed Jury Instructions/Request to Charge, 138 Order on Motion for Hearing, 77 Calendar Entry, 6 Electronic Filing Order, 145 Notice (Other), 49 Order on Motion for Order, 14 Bail Information Sheet, 48 Reply/Response Misc.For docket entries without a hyperlink, contact the court to arrange for the document(s) to be made available to you. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

11/07/2013 150 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant:Jury Trial as


to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/7/2013 Jury Trial Continued Until 11/8/13 at 10:00AM, Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/7/2013 re 116MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Benjamin Green, III Total Time: 5 hours and 15 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).)(LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 151 ORAL MOTION for Acquittal by Benjamin Green, III. (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/08/2013)

11/08/2013 152 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant: denying 151 Oral Motion for Acquittal as to Benjamin Green III (1); Jury Trial as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/8/2013 Jury Trial Continued Until 11/12/13 at 10:00AM; Motion Hearing as to Benjamin Green, III held on 11/8/2013 re 151 ORAL MOTION for Acquittal filed by Benjamin Green, III. Total Time: 3 hours and 20 minutes(Court Reporter D.Smith(ECRO).) (LaLone, L.) (Entered: 11/08/2013)







Exhibit 7

Man's request for a reversal of the death ruling denied

The Associated Press Posted: Oct 10, 2013 3:17 PM ET Last Updated: Oct 10, 2013 4:46 PM ET

An Ohio man is finding out there's no easy way to come back from the dead.

Donald Miller Jr. went to court this week to ask a county judge to reverse a 1994 ruling that declared him legally dead after he haddisappeared from his home eight years earlier. But the judge turned down his request, citing a three-year time limit for changing a deathruling.

Hancock County Probate Court Judge Allan Davis called it a "strange, strange situation."

"We've got the obvious here. A man sitting in the courtroom, he appears to be in good health," said Davis, who told Miller the three-yearlimit was clear.

"I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," the judge said.

'It kind of went further than I ever expected it to...'- Donald Miller Jr.

Miller resurfaced about eight years ago and went to court so that he could get a driver's license and reinstate his Social Security number.

His ex-wife had opposed the move, saying she doesn't have the money to repay the Social Security benefits that were paid out to her andthe couple's two children after Miller was declared dead.

Robin Miller said her former husband vanished because he owed big child support payments and that the overdue payments had totalled$26,000 by 1994, The (Findlay) Courier reported.

Miller, 61, who now lives in the northwest Ohio city of Fostoria, told the judge that he disappeared in the 1980s because he had lost hisjob and he was an alcoholic. He lived in Florida and Georgia before returning to Ohio around 2005.

His parents told him about his "death" when he came back to the state, he said.

"It kind of went further than I ever expected it to," Miller said. "I just kind of took off, ended up in different places."

© The Associated Press, 2013

Comments on this story are pre-moderated. Before they appear, comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure they meet oursubmission guidelines. Comments are open and welcome for three days after the story is published. We reserve the right to closecomments before then.

Submission Policy

Note: The CBC does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that CBC has theright to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that commentsare moderated and published according to our submission guidelines.

Ohio judge tells man he's still legally dead - World - CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ohio-judge-tells-man-he-s-still-legally-de...

1 of 12 11/9/2013 2:33 PM






Exhibit 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : : v. : Crim. No. 3:12cr193(VLB) : : BENJAMIN GREEN, III :

UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO GREEN’S SEVENTH MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 4, 2013, Benjamin Green filed with the Clerk of the Court a

“Common Law Counter Claim: Failure to State a Jurisdictional Claim Upon Which

Relief May Be Granted Want of Jurisdiction in Personam.”1 Later that day, Mr.

Green faxed a letter to the Court asking the Court to treat his counterclaim as a

pretrial motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). The Court has ordered the United

States to file this response to Mr. Green’s filing, which the government

understands to be – in essence – Mr. Green’s seventh motion to dismiss.2

Like his first six motions to dismiss, Mr. Green’s counterclaim is replete with

traditional tax defier gibberish.3 The United States has reviewed Mr. Green’s filing,

1 Although the Clerk of the Court received Mr. Green’s “counterclaim,” it has not actually been accepted as a pleading or motion on the Court’s docket in this matter. 2 See Dkt. Nos. 3, 25, 38, 39, 70, and 116. 3 Mr. Green purportedly subscribes to the “redemption” or “strawman” theory, which has been roundly rejected by the IRS and the courts. For a description of the redemption theory, see Buczek v. Bruce, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55409, *3-5 (W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011); United States v. Buczek, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17271, *4-6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2010). For a description of the “Original Issue Discount (OID)” variant of this theory, which the defendant asserted here, see United States v. Morris, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11928, *3-4 (D. Colo. 2011); United States v. Marty, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2783, *14-17 (D. Cal. 2010).

Case 3:12-cr-00193-VLB Document 144 Filed 11/06/13 Page 1 of 8

2

and has again undertaken a good faith effort to parse through Mr. Green’s motion

to identify any cognizable theory upon which relief could be granted.

At the outset, the government notes that Mr. Green’s motion – styled as a

“common law counterclaim” against the United States and the Internal Revenue

Service – in utterly inapposite here. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

contemplate counterclaims;4 there is no such animal in federal criminal cases.

Here, Mr. Green is charged by indictment with two violations of federal criminal

law. If Mr. Green wants to file a separate civil suit against the United States (writ

large) or the Internal Revenue Service, he will have to follow the appropriate

administrative and civil judicial procedures. However, that civil action would exist

separate and apart from the instant criminal case against Mr. Green.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Green

Interpreting Mr. Green’s counterclaim as a motion to dismiss, it appears that

Mr. Green is asserting that there is some legal distinction between Benjamin

Green, III, the flesh and blood man, and a fictional legal entity, “BENJAMIN

GREEN, III,” expressed in all capital letters. Mr. Green asserts that the Court has

jurisdiction over one of them, but not the other. This distinction is simply tax

protestor folklore, which this district court has seen before.5 There is only one Mr.

Green as it relates to these proceedings, and there is no legal distinction between

Mr. Green’s name written in all capital letters or only initial capital letters.

4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. 5 Callan v. Paulson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31987, 3-4, Fn. 2 (D. Conn. 2009) (quoting Callan v. Internal Rev. Serv. Comm’r, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12403, 2007 WL 552219 at *2).


3

Seemingly all of Mr. Green’s arguments regarding jurisdiction, addressed

below, flow from Mr. Green’s central argument that “Benjamin Green, III” is not

“BENJAMIN GREEN, III.”

Page 2 of Counterclaim – “Name of Counter Plaintiff” Page 11 – Proof of Claim

Here, Mr. Green first asserts on page 2 that he is “Benjamin Green, III” and

not “BENJAMIN GREEN, III.” On page 11, he concludes by arguing that the

government must offer proof that Mr. Green has agreed to be held responsible for

his fictitious entity.

For the purposes of this case, there is only one Benjamin Green: the man

who stole $616,434 from the United States Treasury. Mr. Green, the flesh and blood

man, is who is on trial in this matter. Moreover, Mr. Green’s argument blithely

ignores the fact the Mr. Green’s own driver’s license – attached to Mr. Green’s

counterclaim as Exhibit B – lists Mr. Green’s name in all capital letters.

Page 4 of Counterclaim – “De Jure Constitutional Status of Counter Plaintiff Page 6 – Emergency War Powers

Page 8 – Hybrid Citizen for a Hybrid Government

In these sections of his counterclaim, Mr. Green continues his dissertation

on what he argues is the legal distinction between “flesh and blood” people and

the fictitious legal entity “BENJAMIN GREEN, III.” Mr. Green argues that he enjoys

“Private Citizenship of the United States,” explaining that his fictional legal entity

“Benjamin Green, III” is a “quasi-corporate public ‘U.S. Citizen’ of the ‘United

States’ in commerce.”

These arguments appear to relate to Mr. Green’s assertion, made in his

earlier motions to dismiss, that the United States is also a fictitious entity. It is not.


4

The United States is a real government, and Mr. Green stole real money from the

United States Treasury.

Page 4 – Private Non-Statutory Resident

Here, Mr. Green reasserts that while he is a resident of Connecticut, he is

not a “de facto, public ‘U.S. Citizen.’” Mr. Green is a United States citizen, and

enjoys the benefits and responsibilities that accompany his citizenship.

Where the Court has subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal matter – as it

does here, it also has personal jurisdiction.6 Mr. Green is not “sovereign” and

does not enjoy any immunity from prosecution for his crimes.

Page 4 – Counter Plaintiff Not Surety

It is unclear to the United States what Mr. Green is claiming here. Mr. Green

did send the IRS documents, on more than one occasion, titled Affidavit of

Individual Surety. Tax protesters often used these forms to try to “unlock” what

they claim are secret accounts held by the IRS on behalf of each taxpayer.

In light of Exhibit 4 to Mr. Green’s counterclaim, it appears that, like his 2008

federal tax return, Mr. Green now rescinds his “Affidavit of Surety.” It seems that

Mr. Green is extending his “I take it all back” argument, claiming that there is no

injury to the United States now that he has rescinded his fraudulent tax return and

his frivolous affidavit.

6 United States v. Borbon, 326 Fed. Appx. 35, 37 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 65 (1951) (“[t]he District Court had jurisdiction of offenses against the laws of the United States . . . hence it had jurisdiction of . . . the persons charged”).


5

Of course, putting aside the fact that Mr. Green has failed to pay back the

hundreds of thousands of dollars he stole from the government, simply stating “I

now retract my fraudulent filing” does not foreclose the criminal case against Mr.

Green. Indeed, even if Mr. Green had repaid the money he stole from the United

States, he may still be prosecuted for his crime.

If Mr. Green is ready to accept responsibility for his crimes, he can plead

guilty to the indictment. If Mr. Green wants to tell the jury that this was one big

misunderstanding, he will have the opportunity to do so at trial. However, he

cannot “undo” what he has done by claiming rescission of his fraudulent

documents.

Page 4 – Flags of Counter Plaintiff

This is unintelligible to the United States. Tax protestors sometime argue

that the particular fringe (or lack thereof) on the U.S. flags denote some

significance with respect to the Court’s jurisdiction. It does not. This Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this case,7 and personal jurisdiction over Mr.

Green.

7 United States v. Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (case citations omitted) (holding, “In sum, the United States was not in want of jurisdiction.”).


6

Page 5 – Law of the Case Page 6 – Due Process of Law

Page 9 – Statement of the Case Page 10 – Legal Dilemma

Mr. Green again raises his Fifth Amendment rights and his demand for due

process, but still has not articulated any violation of his due process rights. On

page nine of the Counterclaim, Mr. Green identifies the criminal statutes with

which he is charged in the indictment, and seems to complain that the United

States must prove its allegations against Mr. Green. He also complains that it

would be a violation of due process to “impose a martial due process” again Mr.

Green for the conduct of his fictitious legal entity, “BENJAMIN GREEN, III.”

A duly-authorized grand jury returned an indictment against Benjamin

Green, III, the man who filed a false federal tax return for tax year 20008 and who

attempted to obstruct the IRS’s recovery of the erroneous refund it issued. To the

extent that Mr. Green is complaining that the United States has not yet proved its

case against him beyond a reasonable doubt, his complaint is premature. Trial has

commenced, and the United States will call its first witness on November 7, 2013.

Mr. Green will get his day in Court, and the jury will decide his guilt or innocence.


7

CONCLUSION

The Court should deny Mr. Green’s “counterclaim,” which the United States

has interpreted as his seventh motion to dismiss, and this case should continue

with trial as scheduled.

Respectfully submitted,

DEIRDRE M. DALY ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Sean Beaty SEAN BEATY TRIAL ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. phv05308 U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division PO Box 7238

Washington, DC 20044 Tel. (202) 616-2717

[email protected] SUSAN L. WINES ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. phv2379 United States Attorney’s Office 157 Church Street, 25th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Tel. (203) 821-3700

[email protected]


8

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on November 6, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically and served by email on anyone unable to accept electronic filing.

Notice of this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court’s

electronic filing system or by email to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as

indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through

the Court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/ Sean Beaty SEAN BEATY SPECIAL ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:12-cr-00193-VLB ) Plaintiff, ) “SEALED” ) v. ) ) BENJAMIN GREEN, III ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) ) Benjamin Green, III ) COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM ) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, ) FAILURE TO STATE A ) JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON v. ) WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; ) WANT OF JURISDICTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) IN PERSONAM Assignee of U.S.A. ) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) Plaintiffs/ Counter Defendants. ) )

COMMON LAW COUNTER CLAIM:

FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM

COMES NOW, Benjamin Green III, Counter Plaintiff, in esse and sui juris, and claims

the following:

1 of 16

I. SPECIAL APPEARANCE

1. Counter Plaintiff is before this court in a special, restricted appearance in propria

persona.

2. Counter Plaintiff is not before this court in a general appearance, “pro se,”

representing “BENJAMIN GREEN, III,” nor has he pled to the merits of the case.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL POSTERITY

3. Counter Plaintiff is one of “We the People,” a member of the Posterity of the

sovereign “We the People,” having established and ordained the Constitution of

the State of Connecticut (1788) and the Constitution for the United States of

America (1787).

4. Counter Plaintiff is not a member of the posterity of a conquered people. Counter

Plaintiff is neither an enemy, rebel or belligerent within the “United States,” said

enemy “persons” as defined by 12 U.S.C. 95b; nor does he publicly reside,

pursuant to state or federal statute, within a conquered territory under martial rule

of a military conqueror, i.e., the President of the United States in his martial role

as Commander in chief and/or the Governor of the State of Connecticut in his/her

martial role as Commander in Chief.

III. NAME OF COUNTER PLAINTIFF

5. Counter Plaintiff’s private Christian name at Common Law is “Benjamin” with use

of the suffix (“III”) as the third use of the private Christian name Benjamin in line

from his grandfather and father. His surname (family name) is “Green.”

2 of 16

6. Concerning this action, Counter Plaintiff is known by no other civilian name. (See

attached Exhibit 1 with sub-exhibits 1A thru 1C, and Exhibit 2).

7. Counter Plaintiff is not “BENJAMIN GREEN, III,” BENJAMIN GREEN, 3RD,”

“Benjamin Green, 3rd” or any other derivative of said nom de guerre/name of war

denoted in all uppercase letters or upper and lower case letters with

abbreviations. (See Exhibit 3 as shown on Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.)

IV. DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF COUNTER PLAINTIFF

8. Counter Plaintiff is a natural born, private individual citizen of the United States of

America defined as “the collective name of the states which are united by and

under the Constitution.” Hooven v. Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 672

(1945).

9. Counter Plaintiff enjoys said Private Citizenship of the United States of America

conferred by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States of America (hereinafter “Private American Citizen”). Thus, Counter

Plaintiff enjoys his constitutionally-protected, de jure, Private Citizenship status

without having been reduced to an inferior grade of citizenship status by means

of any state or federal contract, whether unilateral or bilateral, express or implied.

(See as shown Exhibit 1 sub-exhibit 1A through 1C.)

10. Counter Plaintiff is not, nor has he ever been, “BENJAMIN GREEN, III” or

“BENJAMIN GREEN, 3rd,” a statutorily-created, de facto, quasi-corporate, public

“U.S. citizen” of the “United States” in commerce, the “United States,” in this

instance, being defined as “the territory over which the sovereignty of the United

States extends.” Hooven, supra, 671. Counter Plaintiff is not a state-created

3 of 16

entity in commerce, as are all state-created, artificial business entities such as

corporations, statutory business trusts, etc. (As shown with Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2

and Exhibit 3)

V. PRIVATE NON-STATUTORY RESIDENT

11. Counter Plaintiff is a de jure Private American Citizen at Common Law and

therefore a Private Resident of the State of Connecticut, privately residing on the

Land in the County of Fairfield.

12. Counter Plaintiff is not, nor has he ever been, “BENJAMIN GREEN, III,” a de

facto, public “U.S. citizen” and statutory public resident of the State of

Connecticut as are all state-created, artificial business entities such as

corporations, partnerships, statutory business trusts, etc. (See as shown on the

Exhibit 1 with sub-exhibits 1A thru 1C and Exhibit 2.)

VI. COUNTER PLAINTIFF NOT SURETY

13. Counter Plaintiff is not, nor has he ever been, surety for, nor wedded into one

artificial entity with “BENJAMIN GREEN, III,” a statutory creation of the State of

Connecticut. (See shown on Exhibit 1 with sub-exhibits 1A thru 1C and Exhibit 2.)

14. Counter Plaintiff does not, nor has he ever, provided a signature of suretyship for

“BENJAMIN GREEN, III.” (See Exhibit 4 )

VII. FLAGS OF COUNTER PLAINTIFF

15. The flags of Counter Plaintiff are the civilian flag of the Republic of the United

States of America and the civilian flag of the State of Connecticut. Neither

4 of 16

civilian flag is defined in either federal or state law as being bordered with gold

fringe.

16. The martial flag of the President acting as Commander in chief of the United

States and the martial flag of the Governor acting as Commander in chief of the

State of Connecticut are each bordered on three sides with gold fringe and/or

draped with a gold cord with a gold tassel attached to each end. These flags are

not the civilian flags of Counter Plaintiff, a Private American Citizen at Common

Law and not a “rebel” or “belligerent” publicly residing in a conquered territory of

“the United States.”

VIII. LAW OF THE CASE

17. The Law of this case is the Constitution of the United States of America, the

supreme law of the land, federal and state.

18. Every judge, federal and state, has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of

the United States of America as the supreme law of the land, federal and state.

Failure to do so would be a violation of that oath subjecting the judge to

sanctions.

19. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, every de jure

Private American Citizen of the United States of America, privately residing at

Common Law on the land of his county, was then entitled (in 1791) to a civilian

due process at common law.

5 of 16

IX. DUE PROCESS OF LAW

20. Counter Plaintiff, a constitutionally-protected, de jure Private Citizen of the United

States of America, is guaranteed due process of law in a federal court by the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. At the federal level, said due

process must be a civilian name without abbreviation, and opportunity to be

heard, which procedure must be conducted under the law of the civilian flag of

the Republic of the United States of America defined in Title 4 of the United

States Code.

21. Counter Plaintiff is not a statutorily-created, de facto, public “U.S. citizen” or an

enemy belligerent publicly residing in a conquered territory or military district and

hence subject to martial due process. Therefore, Counter Plaintiff is not subject

to martial due process, including notice to Counter Plaintiff in an all-upper-case

nom de guerre, and opportunity to be heard, which procedure is conducted under

the law of the martial flag of the temporary, de facto Emergency War Powers

military government of the “United States.”

X. EMERGENCY WAR POWERS

22. On March 9, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued his Emergency War

Powers Proclamation 2040 imposing a de facto military government thereby

displacing the de jure constitutional government of the Republic. On the same

day Congress, in regulating banking commerce during the declared national

emergency, passed its amended “Trading With the Enemy Act” thereby validating

FDR’s Proclamation, a de facto coup d’etat. At that moment every federal and

state court, became in substance an “Emergency War Powers court,” while in

6 of 16

form remaining creations of their respective constitutions. Hence today, every

court of record is IN FORM a constitutionally-created court, but IN SUBSTANCE

is an Emergency War Powers Court sitting in legislative equity as the Judicial

arm of its corresponding de facto Emergency War Powers government.

23. On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court handed down two landmark decisions

thereby abolishing “federal general common law” process, as well as the formerly

protected common law right to contract, enjoyed during the glorious “Lochner

Era” (1905-1938), and held to be sacred by the constitutional, de jure Private

American Citizen. This was decided as a result of FDR’s martial seizure of every

de jure Private American Citizen as “booty of war” on March 9, 1933. For the de

jure Private American Citizen had been previously reduced to being “registered

property” of a state-created, commercial entity and thereby his de jure Private

American Citizenship was reduced to an inferior grade. Counter Plaintiff believes

that degrading of constitutional de jure status was accomplished by means of a

legal fiction/presumption of law through the use of a cleverly designed,

constructive contract. This contract reduced the de jure Private American Citizen

to being mere property of, surety for and wedded as one entity with his mirrored,

state-created, statutory, de facto, public “U.S. citizen” in commerce—by operation

of law. As a result of the two decisions above, this new individual public “U.S.

citizen,” in substance a hybrid, artificial entity in commerce under emergency war

powers, could never claim a right to a civilian common law process or procedure,

as well as a common law right (including the common law right to contact his

labor), in any federal court.

7 of 16

24. These two decisions of the Supreme Court enabled both federal and state

Emergency War Powers Courts to begin a new legal era (1938-Present so

declared by The Pennsylvania Digest) by imposing SUBSTANTIVE Roman Civil

Law/martial process to obtain In Personam jurisdiction over all de facto, public

“U.S. citizens” in commerce (corporate and individual) having been directly

seized as “booty of war” by the de facto Emergency War Powers Government in

Washington, D.C. Evidenced by the martial process imposed on public “U.S.

citizens” by both federal and state courts, these conquered and captive public

“U.S. citizens” were subsequently considered to be “enemies, combatants and

rebels” publicly residing according to statute within the “conquered territories” of

the “United States.” For as the Republic of Rome became a de facto military

empire by proclamation of Augustus Caesar in 27 B.C., even so the Republic of

the United States of America Became, IN SUBSTANCE, a de facto military

empire by a military war powers proclamation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt

in A.D. 1933.

XI. HYBRID CITIZEN FOR A HYBRID GOVERNMENT

25. The individual de facto public “U.S. citizen” has been, since March 9, 1933, a

hybrid combination of the constitutionally-protected, de jure Private American

Citizen with the state-created, de facto public “U.S. citizen” in commerce, the

latter status controlling.

26. The de facto military government of the United States and the de facto military

government of the State of Connecticut have been, since March 9, 1933, mere

hybrid combinations of the constitutionally-created, de jure Republican

8 of 16

Owner

Note

governments with the “temporarily” imposed, de facto Emergency War Powers

governments created by presidential proclamation and congressional statute, the

latter governments controlling. These de facto military governments are

republican IN FORM, but are martial IN POWER. Hence, the de facto “Holy

Roman” Fourteenth Amendment, pro-socialist-communist, cartel-capitalist

American Empire is composed of individual hybrid citizens of Washington, D.C.,—

public “U.S. citizens”—governed and regulated without limitation by statute while

deemed to be enemy combatants in commerce by their hybrid, extra-

constitutional, de facto military governments, federal and state.

XII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

27. The Counter Defendants have submitted allegations that Counter Plaintiff has

somehow failed to perform to the terms of some presumed agreement for specific

performance arising from an assumed commercial contract with either the state

or federal governments. The terms are certain statutes of the Internal Revenue

Code; the commercial contract is unstated resting upon a legal

fiction/presumption of fact.

28. By Counter Defendants bringing their original “INDICTMENT” (18 U.S.C. section

287; 26 U.S.C, section 7212 (a), Counter Defendants have accused Counter

Plaintiff of failing to specifically perform to some legislative statute regulating

commerce which duty to perform arises from a legal fiction/presumption of law

that Counter Plaintiff is similarly situated with other statutory public “U.S.

Citizens” in commerce (Title 26) governed as “enemies and belligerents” as a

matter of political status (Title 18) (see Exhibit 5).

9 of 16

29. Thus, because of this unsupported conclusion of law, and because the Counter

Defendants have administratively decided that the accused Private American

Citizen, privately residing on the Land at Common Law, is subject to the statues

in question, the Counter Plaintiff holds that a contrary conclusion of law exists to

challenge said legal fiction/presumption of law of the Counter Defendants

necessary to invoke the personal jurisdiction of this court.

30. Counter Defendants have sought to impose an “income tax” on Counter Plaintiff

when said 16th Amendment tax has clearly been stated by the Supreme Court to

be an indirect excise tax on all income derived from commercial privilege

conferred by either state or federal authority. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad

Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Counter Plaintiff is not a state-charted, commercial “U.S.

citizen,” but a Private Citizen of the United States of America protected by

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

31. Counter Plaintiff has made it a matter of public record that he is a Non-taxpayer,

and a Non-Belligerent as a matter of citizenship status, since he is a natural born,

non-commercial, non-belligerent, Private Citizen of the United States of America.

XIII. LEGAL DILEMMA

32. If the Counter Defendants attempt to use this de facto Emergency War Powers

Court to impose a martial due process of law on Counter Plaintiff through the use

of commercial nom de guerre “BENJAMIN GREEN, III” and the use of federal

martial flags in said martial process, it would be a violation of Counter Plaintiff’s

right to a civilian due process at Law.

10 of 16

33. Further, the judge, if he proceeds with said martial process, would be in violation

of his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of

America as it relates to Counter Plaintiff, a Private American Citizen of the United

States and protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Said violation

of due process would create a major federal question to be resolved in an

appellate court, while subjecting the judge to potential judicial review and

sanctions. Counter Plaintiff does not believe this is the intent of Counter

Defendants.

XIV. PROOF OF CLAIM

34. THEREFORE, Counter Plaintiff demands that Counter Defendants step forward

with a Proof of Claim establishing in law and fact:

A. That Counter Plaintiff has lost his status of being a constitutionally-protected,

de jure, Private Citizen of the United States of America (protected by Section

1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) no longer privately residing on the Land at

Common Law;

B. That Counter Plaintiff is now a statutory public resident of the State of New

Hampshire, and thus a franchised, state-created, de facto, public “U.S.

citizen” considered to be an enemy belligerent in commerce known by its nom

de guerre “BENJAMIN GREEN III” or any derivative of said war name thereof;

C. That Counter Plaintiff has knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or by operation of

law, entered into an agreement for the exercise of a privilege or the receipt of

a commercial benefit and, for attendant considerations, assumed duties and

obligations carried with that grant of privilege or benefit thereby reducing his

11 of 16

“natural born,” non-commercial, de jure, Private American Citizen status to the

inferior grade of being a de facto, public “U.S. citizen” and enemy belligerent

in commerce giving rise to a legal fiction/presumption of law translating into

Counter Defendants’ determination of public U.S. citizenship/statutory

resident/enemy belligerent/taxpayer status (which taxpayer status is held by

all state-created corporations) and that Counter Plaintiff is therefore subject to

the martial process of this constitutionally-created, Article III Court under the

“temporary” Emergency War Powers Proclamation 2040 as of March 9, 1933,

sitting in a substantive Equity enforcing provisions of the United States Code,

including Titles 18 and 26.

XV. CONCLUSION

35. Counter Plaintiff, specially appearing in his proper person in challenging this

martial process imposed by the Counter Defendants, demands the court take

judicial notice that he has been compelled to make a special, restricted

appearance to answer Counter Defendants’ jurisdictional allegations listed

above. Counter Plaintiff contends said allegations are founded upon false

conclusions of law. The following Memorandum of Law sets forth the position of

Counter Plaintiff showing that no evidence is before this court which contradicts

the position of Counter Plaintiff, including the potential existence of a legal

fiction/presumption of law that would justify submitting Counter Plaintiff to the

court’s martial due process to confer In Personam jurisdiction and subsequent

proceedings in legislative equity, as opposed to a civilian at Law process

12 of 16

and subsequent In Personam procedure guaranteed to Counter Plaintiff—a

Private American Citizen—by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States.

36. Counter Defendants’ presumption of law, i.e., that Counter Plaintiff is a statutory

resident of the State of Connecticut publicly residing within the district of this

federal court, and thus a de facto, public “U.S. citizen” and enemy belligerent in

privileged commerce, cannot stand in the face of a clear and direct challenge

unless Counter Defendants meet their burden of proof in establishing the legal

existence of said legal fiction/presumption of law. Without a proof of claim,

Counter Defendants have failed to state a jurisdictional claim upon which relief

may be granted, this court being precluded from assuming In Personam

jurisdiction over Counter Plaintiff, a non-statutory, non-commercial, non-surety,

non-state franchised, non-quasi corporate, non-belligerent, non-territorial

residing, non-military district residing, de jure Private Citizen of the United

States of America protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

37. A MEMORANDUM OF LAW attached to this COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM:

FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY

MAY BE GRANTED; WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM, is included

by reference as though fully stated herein.

RELIEF DEMANDED

THEREFORE, it is now incumbent upon this Court to order the Counter Defendants to

bring forth their proof of claim that Counter Plaintiff is a public “U.S. citizen” and a

“taxpayer” which can be subjected to a jurisdiction which utilizes a procedural martial

13 of 16


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:12-cr-00193-VLB ) Plaintiff, ) “SEALED” ) v. ) ) BENJAMIN GREEN, III ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) ) Benjamin Green, III ) COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM ) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, ) FFAILURE TO STATE A ) JJURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON v. ) WWHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; ) WWANT OF JURISDICTIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) IIN PERSONAMAssignee of U.S.A. ) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) Plaintiffs/ Counter Defendants. ) )





Exhibit 1

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION Exhibit A

13

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION Exhibit B

14

NOTICE OF RELEASE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION Exhibit C

15







Exhibit 2







Exhibit 3







Exhibit 4







Exhibit 5


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:12-cr-00193-VLB ) Plaintiff, ) “SEALED” ) v. ) ) BENJAMIN GREEN, III ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________ ) ) Benjamin Green, III ) COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM ) Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, ) FAILURE TO STATE A ) JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON v. ) WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; ) WANT OF JURISDICTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) IN PERSONAM Assignee of U.S.A. ) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) ) Plaintiffs/ Counter Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM




This MEMORANDUM OF LAW is intended to be read in conjunction with each of the

fourteen sections in Counter-Plaintiff’s (hereafter “Green’s”) COMMON LAW

COUNTERCLAIM: FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH

RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; LACK OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM.

1 of 23

I. SPECIAL APPEARANCE

1. Green, in challenging the In Personam jurisdiction of this court, has made a

special, restricted appearance in his proper person, in propria persona. There is

no need to cite legal authorities in this instance, for the maxim is:

“ In clear cases, he mistakes who cites legal authorities: for obvious truths are not to be proved…for he who endeavors to prove them obscures them.”

2. Green, in challenging the In Personam jurisdiction of this court, has not made a

general appearance, nor is he representing “BENJAMIN GREEN, III ” in a “pro se”

capacity, nor has he entered a plea, nor has he pled to the merits of the case.

II. CONSTITUTIONAL POSTERITY

3. Green is a member of “the People” of Connecticut having according to the Rule

of the Word of God on January 14, 1639, adopted the Fundamental Orders in

Connecticut, the world’s first written constitution, despite the fact that it does not

share many properties of a traditional constitution. In 1638, the Connecticut

legislative body, or General Court, began meeting to discuss the drafting of the

orders. The Council completed its efforts by the beginning of 1639 and shortly

thereafter the Fundamental Orders became the cornerstone of government in

Connecticut Preamble stated:

“For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the

2 of 23

Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:.”

Further, that on January 8, 1788, the representatives of the God fearing People of

the State of Connecticut ratified the United States Constitution in the Name of the

People of the State of Connecticut.

“We the Delegates of the People of sd State in general Convention assembled, pursuant to an Act of the Legislature in October last, Have assented to and ratified, and by these presents do assent to, ratify and adopt the Constitution, reported by the Convention of Delegates in Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September AD. 1787. for the United States of America. “

Further, that on September 15, 1818 the People of the state of Connecticut

Constitution adopted a restatement of the 1639 Fundamental Orders in the new

Preamble to the Eleven Article declared:

“THE people of Connecticut, acknowledging, with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government, do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights, and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors, hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

Further, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut was approved by referendum

on December 14, 1965, and proclaimed by the governor as adopted on December

30. It comprises 14 articles and has been amended 31 times. The CONSTITUTION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT PREAMBLE declares:

“The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.”

3 of 23

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Connecticut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment

4. Green is also a member of the Posterity of the sovereign “We the People” having

ordained and established the Constitution of the United States. Its Preamble declares:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

III. NAME OF COUNTER PLAINTIFF

5. Counter Plaintiff’s Christian name is Benjamin Green III, and he must be

addressed by that name unless his constitutionally-protected, de jure citizenship

status has been altered or modified by a legal event. A proper Christian name

with patronymic is always spelled in both upper and lower case letters, never in

ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, pp. 219, 1295

and 922 we read:

Christian name. The baptismal name as distinct from the surname. The name which is given after his birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. . .” Surname. The family name, the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents. In Faith’s application, 22 N.J. Misc. 412, 39 A2d 638, 640. The last name; the name common to all members of a family.” “Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation. A person’s ‘name’ consists of one or more Christian or given names and one surname or family name. It is the distinctive characterization in words by which one is known and distinguished from others, and description, or abbreviation, is not the equivalent of a ‘name.”

6. Green is not to be addressed by a “nom de guerre” / “ name of war” unless his

constitutionally-protected, de jure citizenship status has been altered or modified

by a legal event. A “nom de guerre” / “name of war” is the name carried by all

4 of 23

American soldiers and is always spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The name-

tag pinned on the right breast of his dress uniform is a “nom de guerre;” the name

stamped on all his belongings during Basic Training, from his fatigues, to his

underwear, to his bath towels, is a “nom de guerre;” and the name appearing on

his military discharge is a “nom de guerre,” which name is always spelled in ALL

CAPITAL LETTERS.

7. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1973),

p. 891, a “nom de guerre” is: “A pseudonym formerly assumed by a French officer

upon entering military service.”

8. According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) p. 179, a “nom de

guerre” is:“A war name; a Pseudonym; Pen Name.” Further, the same source on

page 930 defines “pseudonym” as: “Pseudonym: a false name: fictitious name: a

Pen Name.” Further, Black’s Law Dictionary, ibid, p.562, defines “fictitious name.”

“Fictitious name. A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.” Green is not to be addressed in a fictitious name, but by his Christian name. See

Exhibit 1.

IV. DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF COUNTER PLAINTIFF 9. Green is a natural born, private individual citizen of the United States of America

enjoying said citizenship conferred by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States of America. The original de jure United

States citizenship conferred through Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution was

derivative of State citizenship. An American citizen was first a citizen of his State

5 of 23

and thereby a citizen of the United States. But this citizenship status was

“broadened” by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. James G. Blaine,

one of the promoters of the post war 14th amendment, stated the intent of the

Radical Red Republicans when he declared:

“In the first place, we ask that they [the Southern states] will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic . . . And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breath and scope of our efforts to the Negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship.” [Emphasis in bold]

10. The 14th Amendment, purportedly ratified on July 28, 1868, accomplished what

Blaine and his radical cohorts had intended. The Selective Draft Law Cases, 245

U.S. 366,388 389 (1918) make this clear. Chief Justice Edward White declared:

1. James G. Blaine, Political Discussions: Legislative, Diplomatic, and Popular; 1856-1886, (Norwich, Conn.: The Henry Bill Publishing Company, 1887) pp. 63-64.

“ . . . it broadened the national scope of the Government under the Constitution by causing citizenship of the United States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and derivative, and therefore, operating as it does upon all the powers conferred by the Constitution, leaves no possible support for the contentions made, if their want of merit were otherwise not so clearly made manifest.”

11. However the 14th amendment did not create a new, privileged citizenship. The

de jure, pre-Fourteenth Amendment, Federal Citizenship of the United States

was extended into the post-war, Fourteenth Amendment National citizenship.

Yet the former limited Federal citizenship, protected by Article IV, Section 2, of

the Constitution, that was subsequently extended to become national in nature by

6 of 23

means of the Fourteenth Amendment, remained de jure. For this Federal

citizenship was indeed de jure and not de facto, the result of State ratification of

the organic document having created the United States of America in 1789. In

Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935) the court held:

“Thus, the duel character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship ‘paramount and dominant’ instead of being ‘derivative and dependent’ upon state citizenship.”

Therefore, Green holds de jure Citizenship of the United States of America

secured by Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution and broadened

by Section 1 of the de jure Fourteenth amendment to the United States

Constitution.

12. This de jure 14th Amendment Citizenship for individual American citizens was

also defined to be “private” in contrast with de facto, state-created, “public”

corporate “U.S. citizens.” In Hale v Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906), the Court

held:

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

7 of 23

13. By contrast and comparison, the Court went on to describe the state-created,

“public” corporate citizen. It stated in Hale v. Henkel, supra, 74-75:

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obey the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the exercise of its sovereignty inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [Emphasis in bold]

14. Further stressing the difference between the individual Private Citizen and the

corporate Public Citizen, a federal court declared in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P.

813, 819 (1930):

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”

15. Green is not, nor is he a surety for, nor is he wedded as one entity with, a state-

created, franchised, de facto Public “U.S. citizen” incorporated for the purposes of

commerce.

V. PRIVATE NON-STATUTORY RESIDENT

16. Green is an individual Private Citizen of the United States of America and is

therefore an individual Private Citizen of the State of Connecticut privately

residing at Common Law on the Land of Fairfield County within the geographic

State of Connecticut.

8 of 23

17. Green is not a state-franchised, individual Public “U.S. citizen” and is therefore

not a state-franchised, individual Public citizen of the State of Connecticut.

18. All corporations/artificial persons created by any of the state governments for the

benefit of the public and subject to statutory “public policy” are Public “U.S.

citizens,” publicly residing according to statute within the state of their legal

residence in which they also hold subordinate and derivative state citizenship.

Concerning said state citizenship of a state-created corporation, Hale v Henkel,

supra, page 85, reads:

“As repeatedly held, a corporation is a citizen of a state for purposes of jurisdiction of Federal courts, . . .”

Concerning said corporation, if over fifty percent of the stock of a state-chartered

corporation is held by Public U.S. citizens, then that corporation is considered to

be a Public “U.S. citizen” (46 USC 802(a). Edgar is not a state-enfranchised,

artificial person/Public “U.S. citizen,” nor is he surety for or wedded into one legal

entity with a state-franchised artificial person/Public “U.S. citizen” publicly residing

according to statute within the State of Connecticut.

19. The state-franchised, artificial person, Public “U.S. citizen” is not one of “We the

People” having established the Constitution of the United States of America and

the Constitution of the State of Connecticut. Again we read the opinion of the

Court in Hale v. Henkel, supra, page 78:

“In my opinion, a corporation—‘an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law” —cannot claim the immunity given by the Fourth Amendment: for, it is not part of the ‘People,’ within the meaning of that Amendment. Nor is it embraced by the word ‘persons’ in the Amendment.” [Emphasis in bold]

9 of 23

Green, a Private Citizen of the United States of America, is a member of the

sovereign “We the People” and therefore is a private, non-statutory resident of

the State of Connecticut, privately residing on the land at Common Law in the

County of Fairfield.

VI. COUNTER PLAINTIFF NOT SURETY

20. Upon the state creation of commercial business trust “BENJAMIN GREEN III” on

July 23, 1968, by way of a unilateral contract under seal, Private American

Citizen Benjamin Green III was reduced to an inferior grade of citizenship status,

becoming the property of, surety for and wedded to “BENJAMIN GREEN III” This

merger of an artificial person (created by state statute) with a natural person

(protected by the supreme law of the land) generated, by operation of law, one

new artificial person—the hybrid, the monster, the heretofore nonexistent in law,

individual flesh-and-blood Public “U.S. citizen.” (See “Certification of Birth”

attached to “Notice of Release Without Consideration---NUNC PRO TUNC,”

Exhibit 1 sub-exhibit 1A).

21. Upon consenting by silence to being reduced to the inferior grade of Public “U.S.

citizen,” Green ceased to be a de jure Private Citizen of the United States of

America protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States. He also ceased to be one of the sovereign “We the People”

of the United States and became surety for a stranger, the state-created, artificial

person, Public “U.S. citizen,” in violation of the Word of God, for:

“ He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it; and he that hateth suretyship is sure.” Proverbs 11:15

10 of 23

22. Upon seeing the error of his ways, Green executed a unilateral contract under

seal. (See “Notice of Release Without Consideration—NUNC PRO TUNC,” Exhibit

1.) Meeting all necessary legal requirements for said contract to be in full force

and effect (in writing, signed, sealed, with stated intent, delivered and filed with a

public office of record), Green is no longer property of, surety for or wedded to

Public “U.S. citizen” “BENJAMIN GREEN III” or any derivative of the NAME

thereof. Since the document was executed “NUNC PRO TUNC,” Green is not,

nor has he ever been, property of, surety for, or wedded into one artificial entity

with Defendant “BENJAMIN GREEN III,” a statutory creation of the State of

Connecticut. Green’s public filing of said contract on November 1, 2013 in his

safe keeping repository as a Notary Public Officer of the State of Connecticut, by

delivery and notice to SUSAN L. WINES Assistant United States Attorney as a

party affected by the document by operation of Title 45a of Connecticut Probate

Law quote:

Sec. 45a-569. (Formerly Sec. 45-121). Method of release. Not valid as to land unless recorded. (a) A power releasable according to section 45a-568 may be released, wholly or partially, by the delivery of a written release executed by the donee of the power, for consideration or under seal, to any person who could be adversely affected by the exercise of the power,

and; further with due filing done in any State of several states is valid in the State

of Connecticut, and/or Federal District of Connecticut, through Article IV, Section

1 (‘Full Faith and Credit Clause”), of the Constitution of the United States.

Further, the State of Connecticut and/or Federal District of Connecticut is

prohibited from impairing the obligations of this contract through Article 1, Section

10, of the Constitution of the United States. Concerning the status of Green, the

legal fiction/presumption of law giving rise to Counter Defendant’s presumption

11 of 23

that Green is a quasi-corporate, Public “U.S. citizen”—and therefore a statutory

resident of the State of Connecticut—has been rebutted with prima facie evidence.

22. Since “BENJAMIN GREEN III” is a business trust, Green executed his “Notice of

Release Without Consideration—NUNC PRO TUNC” in accordance with the

Uniform Commercial Code Section 1-107. Said Release acts as a gratuitous

abandonment or giving up of a right and does not require a consideration. Miller

v. Gayman, Mo., 482 S.W. 2d 414 or 415. Said Release unmakes the state’s

contract from the beginning, not merely at termination, the consent of the state

being unnecessary, and has restored Green to the status quo of being a Private

Citizen of the United States of America, one of “We the People.” This status is

protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States of America. This status is the standing, state and social position of

Edgar in his relationship to both federal and state governments as well as to the

political communities of the “United States of America,” the “United States,” “the

State of Connecticut.”

23. Upon Green further seeing the error of his ways, Green executed another

unilateral contract under seal. (See “Affidavit of Truth: Notice of Rescission of

Signatures of Suretyship—NUNC PRO TUNC,” Exhibit 4.) Meeting all necessary

legal requirements for said contract to be in full force and effect (being in writing,

signed, sealed, with stated intent, delivered and filed with a public office of

record), Edgar has rescinded every signature of suretyship ever provided for

Public U.S. citizen “BENJAMIN GREEN III” or derivative of said NAME thereof.

Therefore Green does not provide, nor has he ever provided, a signature of

suretyship for Defendant “BENJAMIN GREEN III,” a statutory creation of the

12 of 23

State of Connecticut. Green’s public filing of said contract is valid in the State of

Connecticut through Article IV, Section 1 (“Full Faith and Credit Claus”), of the

Constitution of the United States. Further, the State of Connecticut and/or the

District of Connecticut is prohibited from impairing the obligation of this contract

through Article 1 Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States. Concerning

the deeds of Green, the legal fiction/presumption of law giving rise to Counter

Defendant’s presumption that Green is a Public “U.S. citizen”—and therefore a

statutory resident of the State of Connecticut—has been rebutted with prima facie

evidence.

24. Upon the public filing of the above two unilateral contracts under seal, the de jure

Fourteenth Amendment citizenship status of Green, in both status and deed, has

been automatically restored pursuant to the general maxims of Law of Contract.

Like Dorothy leaving the artificial world of the “Land of OZ” and returning to the

natural world of “Kansas,” even so Green has ceased to be an artificial

person/Public “U.S. citizen” having returned to being a natural person/Private

Citizen of the United States of America protected by Section 1 of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Green now enjoys the

former status held for a mere (11) days after his natural birth. Green, a member

of the “Posterity” so designated in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United

States of America, is one of the sovereign “We the People.”

VII. FLAGS OF COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

25. The flags of Green are the civilian flag of the Republic of the United States of

America defined in 4 UCS 1, and the civilian flag of the State of Connecticut.

13 of 23

Neither flag is defined in federal or state statutes as being trimmed with gold

fringe or draped with a gold cord having gold tassels on each end of said gold

cord.

26. The flags of Green are not military colors as defined in Army Reg. 840-10, 2-3b,

c(4), trimmed with gold fringe and/or draped with a gold cord with tassels, either

federal or state.

VIII LAW OF CASE

27. The law of case is the Constitution of the United States of America, the supreme

law of the land, federal and state. Pertinent portions of the Constitution are, but

not limited to, the Preamble; Article 1, Section 10; Article IV, sections 1, 2, and 4;

Article VI, section 2; Amendment V; and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IX . DUE PROCESS OF LAW

28. Green, a constitutionally-protected, de jure Private Citizen if the United States of

America, is guaranteed “due process of law” on a federal level by the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and on a state level by Section 1 of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For Green, that

due process must be a civilian due process of law, be it according to the

Common Law. This civilian due process of law is a right of Green as specified in

Hale v. Henkel, supra, page 74;

“His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution.”

29. Green’s constitutional right to a civilian due process of law is to be protected by

the courts, federal and state. In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, at 635 the

14 of 23

Supreme Court declared in 1886 regarding the individual Private American

Citizen:

“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.”

X. EMERGENCY WAR POWERS

30. On March 9, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040

invoking Emergency War Powers to address the national emergency caused by

the Stock Market crash of October, 1929, and the subsequent desperation of the

Sovereign American People. In so doing the limited, constitutional, de jure

government of the United States was driven out and replaced with an unlimited,

extra-constitutional, de facto Emergency War Powers military government. That

it may be clear the government of the United States has been in a declared state

of emergency since March 9, 1933, the Report of the Special Committee on the

Termination of the National Emergency issued on November 19, 1973, declared

in its “Forward:”

“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidential-proclaimed states of national emergency. In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergencies proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”

The Senate Report went on to state pursuant to Senate Resolution 9, 93rd Congress:

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crisis, however,

15 of 23

far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crisis have—from at least, the Civil War—in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.” [Emphasis in bold]

Concerning the final findings of the above Senate Committee, CRS Report for

Congress on “National Emergency Powers” issued September 18, 2001, stated

on page CRS-10:

“The special committee also found that no process existed for automatically terminating the four outstanding national emergency proclamations.”

31. On the same day of March 9, 1933, Congress amended the World War I “Trading

With the Enemy Act” of October 6, 1917, codified today as 12 USC 95 a-b. It

approved and confirmed every act and proclamation of President Roosevelt since

March 4, 1933, the day of his Inaugural Address. By operation of law, the Act

also approved and confirmed the martial seizure of every piece of registered

property recorded on a state level as “booty” to be used as collateral for the

national debt incurred by Roosevelt’s new Fabian Socialist government. That

property included all statutory Public “U.S. citizens” (with their attached

constitutional sureties, the Private Citizens of the United States of America—“We

the People”) of the conquering, de facto Emergency War Powers military

government. This altered, World War I statute made every state-created, Public

“U.S. citizen,” described therein as “any person within the United States,” to be

an enemy combatant, a belligerent and a rebel residing in the “United States”

now considered to be “conquered territories” by the Emergency War Powers, de

facto military government.

16 of 23

32. On March 9, 1933, every federal and state court became a court of the new

Emergency War Powers government imposed on federal and state levels. The

courts of record, though IN FORM remaining de jure constitutional courts having

been created by their respective constitutions, federal and state, became IN

SUBSTANCE de facto statutory courts, their procedural due process having been

altered by federal statute 12 USC 95 a-b. These courts would sit in legislative

equity once their Supreme Court-protected common law process and common

law rights were abolished by two landmark decisions of the Supreme Court

packed by New Dealer, President Roosevelt.

33. On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad Company v

Tompkins, 304 U.S.64, thereby abolishing “federal general common law”

overruling Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842). This radical decision overturned

nearly a century of federal procedural case law which rested on American

Common Law procedure.

34. On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court also decided United States v. Carolene

Products Company, 304 U.S. 144, thereby abolishing the individual common law

right to contract overruling Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). The

decision ended the glorious “Lochner Era (1905-1938) and, with the Erie

decision, enabled all Emergency War Powers courts, federal and state, to alter

their American Common Law civilian process for Private American Citizens into a

Roman Civil Law martial process for Public “U.S. citizens” deemed enemy

combatants publicly residing according to statute in conquered territories and/or

federal districts. These Emergency War Powers Courts could then proceed to sit

in a substantive “Legislative Equity,” no longer bound by historic limitations of the

17 of 23

Anglo-Saxon Common Law, while enforcing the unlimited legislative power of an

Emergency War Powers Congress aided and abetted by subordinate, “territorial,”

state legislatures acting within their jurisdictions.

XI. HYBRID CITIZEN FOR A HYBRID GOVERNMENT

35. The de facto Public “U.S. citizen” is a state-created, artificial person in

combination with the natural person, being the constitutionally-protected, de jure

Private American Citizen, with the former status controlling. The Public “U.S.

citizen” in commerce is a “person within the United States” upon which the

amended “Trading With the Enemy Act” was imposed. Public “U.S. citizens” are

in commerce and adjudged to be enemies, rebels, and belligerents living outside

of de jure constitutional protections. These are the “persons within” the United

States having been submitted to the Congressionally-amended “Trading With the

Enemy Act” and thereby, having lost their sovereignty as “We the People,” have

been reduced and fitted to be governed by an unlimited, de facto Emergency War

Powers military government during a so-called “temporary” state of national

emergency from 1933 to the present (2013).

36. The de facto military government of the United States and the de facto military

government of the State of Vermont and the State of New Hampshire have been,

since March 9, 1933, hybrid combinations of the constitutionally-created, de jure

Republican governments (mandated by Article IV, section 4, of the United States

Constitution) with the de facto Emergency War Powers military governments

created by a presidential proclamation and congressionally-altered World War I

statute, the latter governments controlling. These hybrid governments are

18 of 23

constitutional IN FORM but statutory IN SUBSTANCE. These hybrid

governments are limited and republican IN FORM, but are unlimited and martial

IN SUBSTANCE—and IN POWER.

37. Hence, the Public “U.S. citizen,” being in state intrastate commerce as well as in

federal interstate and foreign commerce, has also been deemed to be an “enemy

combatant” publicly residing according to statute in a state deemed a “conquered

territory.” With this combined commercial/war status, the Public “U.S. citizen” has

been fitted to be statutorily-controlled by all federal and state legislatures while

subject to the enforcement of said statutes by Emergency War Powers Courts,

federal and state, without the absolute limitations of written constitutions, federal

and state. Further, the juries of said Emergency War Powers Courts, federal and

state, have no power of jury nullification, as is the case in all court martial

proceedings. Green is not a Public “U.S. citizen.”

XII. LEGAL DILEMMA

38. If the Counter Defendant/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA attempts to use this de

jure Constitutionally-created Federal court to impose a de facto martial due

process of law on Green through the use of fictitious name/nom de guerre

“BENJAMIN GREEN III,” in addition to setting the court with federal martial flags

during said martial process, it would be a violation of Green’s right to a civilian

due process as mandated by the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

39. Further, the judge, if he/she proceeds with said martial process, would be in

violation of his/her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the

19 of 23

United States of America, as it relates to Green, a Private American Citizen. Said

violation of due process would create a major federal question to be resolved on

an appellate level, while subjecting the judge to potential judicial review and

sanctions. Green does not believe this is the intent of Counter

Defendant/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

XIII. PROOF OF CLAIM

40. THEREFORE, Green demands that Counter Defendant/UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA step forward with a Proof of Claim establishing in law and fact by

sworn affidavit;

a. That Green has lost his status of being a constitutionally-protected, de jure,

Private Citizen of the United States of America (secured by Section 1 of the

Fourteenth Amendment) no longer privately residing on the Land at Common

Law;

b. That Green is now a statutory public resident of the State of Connecticut and

thus a franchised, state-created, de facto, Public “U.S. citizen” (as are all

state-created corporations) considered to be an enemy belligerent in

commerce known by its nom de guerre “BENJAMIN GREEN III” or any

derivative of said war name thereof;

c. That Green has knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or by operation of law, entered

into an agreement for the exercise of a privilege or the receipt of a benefit

and, for attendant considerations, assumed duties and obligations carried with

that grant of privilege or benefit thereby reducing his “natural born,” non-

commercial, non-martial, de jure Private American Citizen status to the

20 of 23

inferior grade of being a de facto Public “U.S. citizen” and enemy belligerent

in commerce giving rise to a legal fiction/presumption of law that Green holds

Public U.S. citizenship/public resident status and that Green is therefore

subject to the de facto martial due process of this substantive de facto

Emergency War Powers Court sitting in a substantive Legislative/Regulatory

Equity. For the burden of proof is on the moving party to set forth the

jurisdictional facts in seeking to access the In Personam jurisdiction of this

court. For once jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts, it becomes the

responsibility of the plaintiff to assert and prove said jurisdiction. Hagans v.

Lavine 415 U.S. 533, (1974). For mere good faith assertions of power have

been abolished. Owen v City of independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980).

XIV CONCLUSION

41. Counter Defendant’s presumption of Law, i.e., that Green is a statutory resident

of the State of Connecticut and thus a de facto Public “U.S. citizen” and enemy

belligerent in privileged commerce, cannot stand in the face of a clear and direct

constitutional challenge unless Counter Defendant meets his burden of proof by

establishing the legal existence of said legal fiction/presumption of law. Without

a proof of claim, Counter Defendant has failed to state a jurisdictional claim upon

which relief may be granted, this Court being precluded from imposing a martial

process and subsequent In Personam jurisdiction over Green, a non-statutory,

non-commercial, non-belligerent, non-territorial, common law resident; but in fact

a de jure Private Citizen of the United States of America.

21 of 23


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS CERTIFIED that Benjamin Green III’s COMMON LAW COUNTERCLAIM:

FAILURE TO STATE A JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED; WANT OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM with attached MEMORANDUM

OF LAW with exhibits annexed in CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:12-cr-00193-VLB was

served upon Plaintiff/Counter Defendant on the ________day of November, 2013, by

depositing copies with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid registered mail

to the attorney for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA addressed as follows:

SUSAN L. WINES Assistant United States Attorney

US Attorney's Office New Haven Office Connecticut Financial Center 157 Church Street Floor 25 New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 821-3700 Fax: (203) 773- 5376

________________________________________ Benjamin Green, III

WONDERS OF THE WAYBACK MACHINE versus ST JUDE of lost causes against the IRS in re USDC District of...

Documents

Transcript of WONDERS OF THE WAYBACK MACHINE versus ST JUDE of lost causes against the IRS in re USDC District of...