Can the IRS/United States consistently call U.S. Supreme Court standing case precedent (stare decisis) on the definition of income, as 'legally frivolous' and lacking legal merit, despite clear conflicts between this court's past rulings, and the lower courts continuing rulings, and in IRS administrative actions in taxing, assessments and levies on untold numbers of Americans, and not be bound by such standing precedent?

Questions Presented 1. Can the IRS/United States and lower courts consistently call U.S. Supreme Court standing case precedent (stare decisis) on the definition of income, as “legally frivolous” and lacking legal merit, despite clear conflicts between this court’s past rulings, and the lower courts continuing rulings, and in IRS administrative actions in taxing, assessments and levies on untold numbers of Americans, and not be bound by such standing precedent? 2. Can the IRS/United States refuse to follow this court’s plain definition of “income” while ignoring the historically understood definition of “income” declared by this court, and label said rulings as “legally frivolous,” especially where Defendant's own code fails to lawfully define “income?” 8. Can the IRS/United States despite clear conflicts between this court’s stare decisis and the lower courts rulings, merely presume without clear, unambiguous evidence and definitions, that the 1913, 16" Amendment authorized a “new” tax on millions of private American’s wages, salary or compensation for service, contrary to this court’s claim otherwise, and use statutory presumption alone to enforce such an unconstitutional tax on Americans? 4. Can the IRS/United States levy ALL Petitioner’s (and all American’s similarly situated) social security, threaten all veteran’s protected disability compensation, and all business assets based on an unverified and unproven assessment, deny discovery of exculpatory documents, and effectively destroy any American’s ability to survive? 5. Can all the courts/judges and all district attorneys, et al, routinely dismiss, manipulate and control all access and proceedings of the Grand Jury process, including denying access to private Americans, despite filing a NOTICE under FRCP 6(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 4 of various crimes occurring to various authorities, and contrary to this court’s U.S. v Williams 1992 decision on the purpose for the Grand Jury, especially where evidence of criminal activity is presented? ii